4 ms·

If you have a deployed fleet of CoreOS instances, FlatCar[1] looks like a viable alternative. This article from NewStack gets into the details. [1] https://www

If you have a deployed fleet of CoreOS instances, FlatCar[1] looks like a viable alternative. This article from NewStack gets into the details. [1] https://www.flatcar-linux.org/ https://www.flatcar-linux.org/ [2] https://thenewstack.io/flatcar-linux-the-coreos-operating-system-lives-on-beyond-red-hat/ https://thenewstack.io/flatcar-linux-the-coreos-operating-sy...

hardwaresofton 8y ago
Last time I saw flatcar they were in some sort of invite-only stage -- super glad that they've released and I'm excited to switch.
- blixtra 8y ago
  Chris from Kinvolk here. It's open for general use now. :)
lima 8y ago
Maintaining an operating system is a massive undertaking. Can Kinvolk guarantee that they will support the distro after Red Hat stops working on it?
- blixtra 8y ago
  That's a very valid question and one we also asked ourselves before taking on the task. There are three main considerations that made us feel this is doable. Firstly, Flatcar is a minimal Linux distro, with more effort made to reduce the number of packages rather than expand. Secondly, Flatcar has not only Container Linux as an upstream, but also Gentoo, which is also a common upstream for Chrome OS and Container-optimized Linux, so well tended to. Thirdly, the technologies (kernel, systemd, containers, low-level Linux userspace) are our core focus as a company. These three considerations are what led us to feel confident in picking up the project and have the motivation to do so. The way I personally see it, if you were ok with using an OS from a team of veteran Linux/open-source contributors in 2013 you should be ok with using one from a team of veteran Linux/open-source contributors in 2018. But this time it's from a team that does not take venture funding. Lastly, it is telling that the ppl that have the most confidence in us pulling this off are the ppl we've worked with as clients or through open source collaborations. We're happy to start there and prove ourselves along the way to other.
  - lima 8y ago
    Thank you for your response! I wish you the best of luck, choice is important for the ecosystem.
LaSombra 8y ago
Why would one want to do that?
- blixtra 8y ago
  As to why we'd do it in the first place, the answer is that our mission as a company is to support foundational Linux technologies for cloud-native infrastructure. We're not looking to create new technologies, but to improve and support those that exist and are widely used already. Container Linux fits that description to a T. Additionally, as we mention in the FAQ, we were already being asked to support Container Linux. Thus, we knew that there was demand and it fits our company mission. So when the acquisition was announced, it was a rather easy decision to make; one that we'd already been considering. But knowing that it was also likely to face changes under new "owners" allows us to also be in the position of preserving a technology that we feel is fundamentally sound.

hardwaresofton 8y ago

Last time I saw flatcar they were in some sort of invite-only stage -- super glad that they've released and I'm excited to switch.

blixtra 8y ago
Chris from Kinvolk here. It's open for general use now. :)

lima 8y ago

Maintaining an operating system is a massive undertaking. Can Kinvolk guarantee that they will support the distro after Red Hat stops working on it?

blixtra 8y ago
That's a very valid question and one we also asked ourselves before taking on the task. There are three main considerations that made us feel this is doable. Firstly, Flatcar is a minimal Linux distro, with more effort made to reduce the number of packages rather than expand. Secondly, Flatcar has not only Container Linux as an upstream, but also Gentoo, which is also a common upstream for Chrome OS and Container-optimized Linux, so well tended to. Thirdly, the technologies (kernel, systemd, containers, low-level Linux userspace) are our core focus as a company. These three considerations are what led us to feel confident in picking up the project and have the motivation to do so. The way I personally see it, if you were ok with using an OS from a team of veteran Linux/open-source contributors in 2013 you should be ok with using one from a team of veteran Linux/open-source contributors in 2018. But this time it's from a team that does not take venture funding. Lastly, it is telling that the ppl that have the most confidence in us pulling this off are the ppl we've worked with as clients or through open source collaborations. We're happy to start there and prove ourselves along the way to other.
- lima 8y ago
  Thank you for your response! I wish you the best of luck, choice is important for the ecosystem.

LaSombra 8y ago

Why would one want to do that?

blixtra 8y ago
As to why we'd do it in the first place, the answer is that our mission as a company is to support foundational Linux technologies for cloud-native infrastructure. We're not looking to create new technologies, but to improve and support those that exist and are widely used already. Container Linux fits that description to a T. Additionally, as we mention in the FAQ, we were already being asked to support Container Linux. Thus, we knew that there was demand and it fits our company mission. So when the acquisition was announced, it was a rather easy decision to make; one that we'd already been considering. But knowing that it was also likely to face changes under new "owners" allows us to also be in the position of preserving a technology that we feel is fundamentally sound.