5 ms·

> 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 "

> 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
        Despite the attempt of some to move goal posts, you're still guaranteed that you won't be locked in by Oracle even tomorrow. You still have the source code for the version you're running right?
        frostmatthew 12y ago
        Sure...as long as I don't care about security patches, bug fixes, performance improvements, or new features.

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
      Despite the attempt of some to move goal posts, you're still guaranteed that you won't be locked in by Oracle even tomorrow. You still have the source code for the version you're running right?
      - frostmatthew 12y ago
        Sure...as long as I don't care about security patches, bug fixes, performance improvements, or new features.