4 ms·
Disclosure: I work on Google Cloud. I think the headline confuses the issue. The community wanted more input and ability to control the release and testing pro
by boulos 8y ago
Disclosure: I work on Google Cloud.
I think the headline confuses the issue. The community wanted more input and ability to control the release and testing process for Kubernetes. It was a fair question to say "Why can only Google cut a release?". We're still happy to fund it, but to make Kubernetes more fully owned by the community and not Google, this was an important step.
Edit: Fwiw, I think William's blog post (https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/gcp/google-cloud-grants-9m-in-credits-for-the-operation-of-the-kubernetes-project https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/gcp/google-cloud-gran...) is more informative, since the TechCrunch article just quotes from it.
- andrewstuart2 8y agoI think this becomes very evident if you pay attention to the multitude of public Community Meeting (and various other SIG meeting videos). The community has wanted equal standing from the very beginning, and even if Google was stepping down funding, I think it would be an important step in making Kubernetes a fairer community, with no particular company seeming to have more input.
- rockostrich 8y agoThe headline is definitely confusing. I thought it was implying that Google was no longer going to use Kubernetes at all. The first couple of sentences of the article cleared that up, but the title should've been something like "Google hands off Kubernetes development to open source community."
- boulos 8y agoEven that's not quite right :). "Google opens up the management of Kubernetes testing and releases with the community" (or something).
- crunchlibrarian 8y agoIs anyone else kind of skeeved out by how an army of googlers descends on every HN post to defend google and their comments are always immediately upvoted to the top? They certainly are efficient at controlling the conversation.
- thockingoog 8y agoWell, the headline is pretty awful. It's kind of personally offensive to see what is really, truly a well-intentioned act get spun in nasty ways. Besides that, 2 people does not an army make...
- CBLT 8y agoSince you asked: no I'm not. They read to me like important clarifications from a misleading headline.
- rconti 8y agoIt is my opinion that the Googlers commenting on this matter are providing useful context. I don't have the negative impression you have obviously gotten from previous instances where this occurred, however. Perhaps it was less than honorable in those other instances.
- boulos 8y agoSorry if you feel that way. I try to be fairly objective, while disclosing my obvious bias. Fwiw, I like HN, precisely because the community rewards healthy dialogue. My good comments are upvoted and the shitty ones are down voted. I worry about whether or not my comments are getting upvoted by lots of Googlers, but I sort of trust the HN moderators to have built in defenses against that in the voting ring detector. I also don't go asking anyone to upvote my comments or submissions, and I actively remind people of the same.
- tptacek 8y agoPlease ignore comments like that; they're explicitly forbidden by the guidelines anyways. I feel like I'm speaking for a lot of people here when I say that the very best comments on the site tend to be written by people with firsthand knowledge of what's going on in the stories, and we need more of those, not less.
- samstave 8y agoWhat if the reverse were true, then people would be annoyed that Google wasn't actively participating in technical communities regarding the impact it's products have on those who spec deploy and admin on them
- StudentStuff 8y agoWhen will Google Cloud get IPv6 support to the VM? I went to a Kubernetes talk here in Seattle at Google's Fremont office, and I was shocked when I found out that IPv6 support was limited to the proprietary load balancers Google offers. This kind of missing functionality makes Google Cloud dead on arrival for anyone needing low latency connectivity to customers on T-Mobile, Verizon and any other cellular network that only provides direct connectivity via IPv6. Natted IPv4 gets much shorter state table entries, and worse yet you get a latency penalty as legacy IPv4 traffic gets encapsulated in IPv6 on most LTE networks.
- moonbug 8y agoSo you use the load-balancing service. That's what it's for.
- fulafel 8y agoThat can be a bandaid but leaves you pretty far from being able to do traditional Internet style networking with global addressing.
- StudentStuff 8y agoI can't do that for SIP or WebRTC :c
- jarboot 8y agoIn these instances, can the URL of this post be changed to the primary source rather than reporting on it?