4 ms·

If anything, the cyclical hype/backlash Docker is getting proves that it is popular and that it works for some people. Consequently, the exposure it gets disple

If anything, the cyclical hype/backlash Docker is getting proves that it is popular and that it works for some people. Consequently, the exposure it gets displeases the people for whom it doesn't work or whose philosophies differ. This feels like Politics 101 if you ask me (I know you didn't :) ), and I'm still surprised by how vehement some people get about this, and about software philosophies in general (particularly considering the average shelf-life of most software). All of that aside, I really like Docker, for the API but also partly because of what the CoreOS people complain about, i.e. a relatively monolithic system. I'm a big fan of modular systems myself and I completely get where CoreOS are coming from with Rocket. But sometimes, I just want to be able to use the tool. I don't want to screw around for hours/days/... to put all the pieces together. The network overlay situation is a perfect example. I know there are different solutions out there, in fact I've been trying some of them out at home. But the truth is, I don't want to have/have time to deal with that stuff and I'd much rather get on with my original ideas. Unfortunately in some situations, as beautiful as the theory and principles are, people justifiably simply want things to work out of the box. I find the criticisms on String Theory are a good example of that, whereby the theory is gorgeous, but in practice does not necessarily have the value it intends to. I digress. I love the idea of a super-modular car I can put together myself, change pieces as and when I wish and so on, but most of the time, I just need to get to my destination.

teacup50 12y ago
> If anything, the cyclical hype/backlash Docker is getting proves that it is popular and that it works for some people. Consequently, the exposure it gets displeases the people for whom it doesn't work or whose philosophies differ. This feels like Politics 101 if you ask me (I know you didn't :) ), and I'm still surprised by how vehement some people get about this, and about software philosophies in general (particularly considering the average shelf-life of most software). Frustration is palpable when there's so much marketing of a technology that genuine engineering discourse suffers. Docker and Joyent are businesses, and they're selling an idea to make money. If how they're selling the idea runs contrary to someone's "software philosophies", that someone has to contend with countering not just an intellectual argument, but also considerable (and often emotive, not educational) marketing. This article — written by the CTO at Joyent — is essentially just marketing linkbait: - It's titled with the catchy "Docker's Killer Feature". Killer. Feature. - The first paragraph includes the phrase "CoreOS ... declared war"! People love wars! See also: "War on Christmas", "War on the Family", and Fox News. The rest of the article is marketing filler. There's no deep dive on the API — having read the article, I don't even know whether Docker's "Killer Feature" is: 1) Actually an API vended by a library. 2) Some sort of IPC protocol. 3) A network protocol, or 4) Underpants!
- kureimoru 12y ago
  > Docker and Joyent are businesses, and they're selling an idea to make money. And how is it different for CoreOS, Inc? They depend on a external product and they want to remove the dependency. That's fine. Smearing their ex-vendor isn't.
  - teacup50 12y ago
    CoreOS advanced a technical argument. Listen to the words you're using – "smearing", as if this actually is a "War on Docker".

teacup50 12y ago

> If anything, the cyclical hype/backlash Docker is getting proves that it is popular and that it works for some people. Consequently, the exposure it gets displeases the people for whom it doesn't work or whose philosophies differ. This feels like Politics 101 if you ask me (I know you didn't :) ), and I'm still surprised by how vehement some people get about this, and about software philosophies in general (particularly considering the average shelf-life of most software). Frustration is palpable when there's so much marketing of a technology that genuine engineering discourse suffers. Docker and Joyent are businesses, and they're selling an idea to make money. If how they're selling the idea runs contrary to someone's "software philosophies", that someone has to contend with countering not just an intellectual argument, but also considerable (and often emotive, not educational) marketing. This article — written by the CTO at Joyent — is essentially just marketing linkbait: - It's titled with the catchy "Docker's Killer Feature". Killer. Feature. - The first paragraph includes the phrase "CoreOS ... declared war"! People love wars! See also: "War on Christmas", "War on the Family", and Fox News. The rest of the article is marketing filler. There's no deep dive on the API — having read the article, I don't even know whether Docker's "Killer Feature" is: 1) Actually an API vended by a library. 2) Some sort of IPC protocol. 3) A network protocol, or 4) Underpants!

kureimoru 12y ago
> Docker and Joyent are businesses, and they're selling an idea to make money. And how is it different for CoreOS, Inc? They depend on a external product and they want to remove the dependency. That's fine. Smearing their ex-vendor isn't.
- teacup50 12y ago
  CoreOS advanced a technical argument. Listen to the words you're using – "smearing", as if this actually is a "War on Docker".