5 ms·

Great news. I'm not a fan of Docker's new monolithic approach to containerization. Things like orchestration and networking should not be included in docker,

• cpuguy83 12y ago
  This is exactly the model being proposed in Docker.
  • mmcclure 12y ago
    I think this was the original model proposed by Docker. What we have now is (as other posters have mentioned), a Docker organization reasonably bent towards creating value for their investors, which means they need to start building things that, you know, make money. To clarify, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with what Docker's doing, but it is at odds with an entirely open, pluggable system. It doesn't make any sense for their business model to truly make it easy to just use their containers and none of the revenue-generating offerings.
    • gtirloni 12y ago
      I've not been following the discussions but if it's such a critical piece of the whole puzzle and it's in everybody's interest that it remains open, wouldn't a foundation, rather than a single private company, be the best venue for leading the project forward?
      • FooBarWidget 12y ago
        Then how do you fund that foundation? Good developers cost a ton of money. Marketing, organizing events, organizing conferences etc also costs a ton of money. I think something like Docker, especially given its growth and adoption rate, never would have been possible without VC funding. VCs wouldn't invest in a non-profit foundation.
• justinsb 12y ago
  I prefer the Unix model - many programs that work together. That might not be practical for networking (a natural plug-in, probably), but feels like it should be the way for orchestration. The Docker image registry and image management should really be a separate program as well - that is a huge pain point that Rocket seems more likely to get right.
  • ecnahc515 12y ago
    Interestingly enough, with flannel, docker's advanced networking capabilities become pretty trivial, and communication across hosts is also pretty trivial. I think all in all, CoreOS has built out a ton of tools to make using Docker easier, and they're all very well defined, and compossible. I'd even say that a lot of docker's features could be completely removed by using some of these tools. Links? Nah just use ips/dns + etcd for service discovery. Networking? Need very basic bridged networking, and flannel will handle communication on a single host, or multihost. Deployment? Use fleet. Not that all these are 100% perfect like I've made them out to be, but any individual component could be swapped out if you want.
    • bananaoomarang 12y ago
      I think this is probably more indicative of the issue that Future Docker would like to be a CoreOS-competing platform, and has been edging towards that state. This is CoreOS' natural bounceback from that.
    • spb 12y ago
      The thing I like about the link model is that they hide your containers from other containers and only expose the connections you want (I think using iptables?) I'd like a tool that makes this linking easier outside of Docker, but for now this is one of the features I like about it (although holy moly do Docker links have a lot of baggage you have to bring along for the ride, like giving everything names).
      • vishvananda 12y ago
        Shameless self plug, but not sure if you saw my project that does something along these lines: https://github.com/vishvananda/wormhole https://github.com/vishvananda/wormhole