I found this post (gp) extremely refreshing actually! For context, I have participated in my fair share of Red Hat betas, and I have found the experience to be

I found this post (gp) extremely refreshing actually! For context, I have participated in my fair share of Red Hat betas, and I have found the experience to be mostly uniform. That is, the product is labeled as beta because it has many (sometimes grave) issues remaining in it. If you are taking part in earnest, you will spend plenty of time reporting bugs. I'm talking about the OpenShift Online betas I was invited to try, but when I was having this experience I remember thinking "yep, it's exactly another RedHat beta!" strong sense of Deja Vu. Don't get me wrong! I am a huge proponent of OpenShift and Kubernetes both, as well as RH, and I spent enough time collaborating with their excellent team and asking questions over IRC to get "the big idea," even if I haven't chosen those solutions to go to production with, or started development on them yet. (As an aside, I didn't pass because of the bugs. I passed because their target market was apparently Java developer, and I am working in Ruby. I could have probably made it work, but all of the documentation I browsed through during my time evaluating the preview of Che and OpenShift hosted platforms indicated to me pretty clearly that I was not the target market, for the beta at least.) I am personally excited but also apprehensive about the CoreOS acquisition because of those experiences. I want CoreOS to bring exactly this kind of hard-hitting factual criticism to the RedHat team, because I don't have the time to spend in Beta programs doing it myself, and it's valuable work that needs to be done in order to guarantee quality in the finished product. And as much as I may sound like I've shat on the OpenShift betas in similar fashion, when I go back and try again the finished product, or read the docs and install open-source release versions of the platform, I find they are all very good, and surely owing to those bug reports and the great developers who patiently follow them up without ceremony. This part of the experience has also been fairly uniform, and it's likely that fact that has brought RedHat so much success in the market. In contrast, I've used CoreOS Container Linux and earlier iterations in more depth (but usually not in betas, even if they were basically bleeding-edge), and found them to be uniformly rock-solid, almost without compromise! As an end-user, this is a better experience, but as a developer I know and am reasonably sure that I still owe it to someone tracking alpha and beta channels, finding the issues when they manifested and reporting them for follow-up before they make it into stable releases. If this comment was a sample of what the fusion of CoreOS and RH teams working together is going to look like, as a fan of both teams and their products, then I sincerely hope to see more of CoreOS in RH. (and I also hope that I can still recognize CoreOS five years from now!)