7 ms·

Interesting takeaways from the post: * Despite Brandon Philips (CoreOS CTO) serving on the Docker governance board, Docker has aggressively expanded their scop

by otoburb 12y ago

Interesting takeaways from the post: * Despite Brandon Philips (CoreOS CTO) serving on the Docker governance board, Docker has aggressively expanded their scope well beyond their original container manifesto. * CoreOS believes the Docker runtime is now too unwieldy and "fundamentally flawed"; the unwritten word that really sprung to mind was that Docker was getting "greedy." * CoreOS reaffirms their original operating model of being capable of running their infrastructure on and with Docker. * Rocket is CoreOS's answer to stay true to the "simple composable building block" mantra.

higherpurpose 12y ago
> CoreOS believes the Docker runtime is now too unwieldy and "fundamentally flawed"; the unwritten word that really sprung to mind was that Docker was getting "greedy." I wonder if that comes from the partnership with Microsoft.
- otoburb 12y ago
  Regardless of whether your comment was lightly sarcastic or not, I agree that the Docker VMWare[1] & Microsoft partnership announcements may have been conditional upon a committed Docker roadmap outlining some or all of the features that others (such as CoreOS) may feel should be broken out. Typically larger ecosystem players want to be assured that your offering will have a clearly defined role within their existing ecosystem that plays to your core brand and technical competency. [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/benkepes/2014/08/25/vmware-gets-docker-love-announces-a-raft-of-integrations-and-partnerships/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/benkepes/2014/08/25/vmware-gets-...
- outside1234 12y ago
  Wow, that is a random jump of logic. Answer: no.
- krschultz 12y ago
  They raised $55 million [1], so you have to believe their ambitions are to extract as much rent from the container ecosystem as possible. That's not a bad thing, but it's behind a lot of their moves. [1] http://www.crunchbase.com/organization/docker http://www.crunchbase.com/organization/docker
  - Alupis 12y ago
    Docker's MO is to become "that thing that is on all servers" so that when they flip the switch and start monetizing off support and tertiary services, people will be more-or-less locked in. It has indeed surprised me how quickly a normally-slow-to-accept-new-things community has adopted Docker (even well before it was considered "stable").
    - simtel20 12y ago
      > how quickly a normally-slow-to-accept-new-things community I think you're referring to the sysadmin community - but I think the driver for this has been the search for deployment nirvana. Deployment is a much more fragmented field, so it makes sense that a good solution would find fertile ground.
      - vcarl 12y ago
        Absolutely. Not only does it simplify deployment, you also get the ability to quickly spin up a new development environment. That means it's easy to dip a toe in and slowly increase how much you use it.
    - hobofan 12y ago
      There is no switch to flip. You are not "locked in" by Docker Inc if you are using Docker just like you aren't locked in by Github if you are using git.
      - frostmatthew 12y ago
        > You are not "locked in" by Docker Inc if you are using Docker just like you aren't locked in by Github if you are using git. A much more accurate analogy would be you are not "locked in" by Oracle if you are using MySQL. It may be true today, but no guarantee that will always be the case.
        mikerichards 12y ago
23david 12y ago
This is great news, particularly for Enterprise customers adopting containers. IMO, Docker's 'new' direction completely ignored the tremendous amount of support they had from the sysadmin and devops communities. But crucially, they also crossed the business models of many startups (including CoreOS, Weave, Flocker, etc.) that rely on Docker maintaining an Open Platform. So this is an entirely logical response. I'll be surprised if now Docker in response doesn't unveil an 'enterprise' Docker version that basically just strips away the unnecessary features and has more security by default. The enterprise market is just too valuable to let it just slip away like this. Your move...
- tveita 12y ago
  What is Docker's 'new' direction? I don't see any related announcements on their blog besides adding support on new platforms.
  - MyDogHasFleas 12y ago
    I attended Docker Global Hack Day #2 on Oct 30 from Austin. A talk was given on an active Docker project for host clustering and container management, which was non-pluggable, and made no reference to and used none of the code from CoreOS's etcd/fleet/flannel projects. This was where I first started worrying about CoreOS and Docker divergence.
    - wmf 12y ago
      But since the hack day there has been a pretty reasonable (IMO) GitHub discussion about the tradeoffs between out-of-box ease of use and customizability. https://github.com/docker/docker/pull/8859 https://github.com/docker/docker/pull/8859
    - gabrielgrant 12y ago
      I saw that same presentation at the same event, but came away with a very different impression: the container management they showed was implemented completely outside of docker itself, with no patches to the docker codebase needed. Also, IIRC it actually did use significant code from etcd for coordination.
fpp 12y ago
I believe the two (Docker & CoreOS) might have rather similar strategies and / or product roadmaps. What seemingly gets mixed up by quite a few commentators on this topic: Docker is an orchestration, deployment, management, etc solution - the "container" is created by LXC, jails, libVirt or other OS features and now also libContainer. This discussion also shows how far away / how early we are with "containerization" or container that are exchangeable / movable between different (OS) environment - we are discussing the companies that are building cranes to load and unload the boxes before we even have an understanding how the boxes will really look like.
Rapzid 12y ago
CoreOS doesn't mind using systemd...

by otoburb 12y ago

higherpurpose 12y ago

> CoreOS believes the Docker runtime is now too unwieldy and "fundamentally flawed"; the unwritten word that really sprung to mind was that Docker was getting "greedy." I wonder if that comes from the partnership with Microsoft.

otoburb 12y ago
Regardless of whether your comment was lightly sarcastic or not, I agree that the Docker VMWare[1] & Microsoft partnership announcements may have been conditional upon a committed Docker roadmap outlining some or all of the features that others (such as CoreOS) may feel should be broken out. Typically larger ecosystem players want to be assured that your offering will have a clearly defined role within their existing ecosystem that plays to your core brand and technical competency. [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/benkepes/2014/08/25/vmware-gets-docker-love-announces-a-raft-of-integrations-and-partnerships/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/benkepes/2014/08/25/vmware-gets-...
outside1234 12y ago
Wow, that is a random jump of logic. Answer: no.
krschultz 12y ago
They raised $55 million [1], so you have to believe their ambitions are to extract as much rent from the container ecosystem as possible. That's not a bad thing, but it's behind a lot of their moves. [1] http://www.crunchbase.com/organization/docker http://www.crunchbase.com/organization/docker
- Alupis 12y ago
  Docker's MO is to become "that thing that is on all servers" so that when they flip the switch and start monetizing off support and tertiary services, people will be more-or-less locked in. It has indeed surprised me how quickly a normally-slow-to-accept-new-things community has adopted Docker (even well before it was considered "stable").
  - simtel20 12y ago
    > how quickly a normally-slow-to-accept-new-things community I think you're referring to the sysadmin community - but I think the driver for this has been the search for deployment nirvana. Deployment is a much more fragmented field, so it makes sense that a good solution would find fertile ground.
    - vcarl 12y ago
      Absolutely. Not only does it simplify deployment, you also get the ability to quickly spin up a new development environment. That means it's easy to dip a toe in and slowly increase how much you use it.
  - hobofan 12y ago
    There is no switch to flip. You are not "locked in" by Docker Inc if you are using Docker just like you aren't locked in by Github if you are using git.
    - frostmatthew 12y ago
      > You are not "locked in" by Docker Inc if you are using Docker just like you aren't locked in by Github if you are using git. A much more accurate analogy would be you are not "locked in" by Oracle if you are using MySQL. It may be true today, but no guarantee that will always be the case.
      - mikerichards 12y ago

23david 12y ago

This is great news, particularly for Enterprise customers adopting containers. IMO, Docker's 'new' direction completely ignored the tremendous amount of support they had from the sysadmin and devops communities. But crucially, they also crossed the business models of many startups (including CoreOS, Weave, Flocker, etc.) that rely on Docker maintaining an Open Platform. So this is an entirely logical response. I'll be surprised if now Docker in response doesn't unveil an 'enterprise' Docker version that basically just strips away the unnecessary features and has more security by default. The enterprise market is just too valuable to let it just slip away like this. Your move...

tveita 12y ago
What is Docker's 'new' direction? I don't see any related announcements on their blog besides adding support on new platforms.
- MyDogHasFleas 12y ago
  I attended Docker Global Hack Day #2 on Oct 30 from Austin. A talk was given on an active Docker project for host clustering and container management, which was non-pluggable, and made no reference to and used none of the code from CoreOS's etcd/fleet/flannel projects. This was where I first started worrying about CoreOS and Docker divergence.
  - wmf 12y ago
    But since the hack day there has been a pretty reasonable (IMO) GitHub discussion about the tradeoffs between out-of-box ease of use and customizability. https://github.com/docker/docker/pull/8859 https://github.com/docker/docker/pull/8859
  - gabrielgrant 12y ago
    I saw that same presentation at the same event, but came away with a very different impression: the container management they showed was implemented completely outside of docker itself, with no patches to the docker codebase needed. Also, IIRC it actually did use significant code from etcd for coordination.

fpp 12y ago

I believe the two (Docker & CoreOS) might have rather similar strategies and / or product roadmaps. What seemingly gets mixed up by quite a few commentators on this topic: Docker is an orchestration, deployment, management, etc solution - the "container" is created by LXC, jails, libVirt or other OS features and now also libContainer. This discussion also shows how far away / how early we are with "containerization" or container that are exchangeable / movable between different (OS) environment - we are discussing the companies that are building cranes to load and unload the boxes before we even have an understanding how the boxes will really look like.

Rapzid 12y ago

CoreOS doesn't mind using systemd...