5 ms·

I'm a little bit afraid about the fragmentation occurring in the container world right now. I felt like in the beginning I could rely on Docker being focused on

by chuhnk 12y ago

I'm a little bit afraid about the fragmentation occurring in the container world right now. I felt like in the beginning I could rely on Docker being focused on containers and really making that a stable building block and utilise tools around that provided by industry leaders. Now Docker have thrown their own hat in the ring, creating a monopoly for themselves. Do you choose docker and their whole ecosystem? Do you pick something else off the shelve? How about Amazon ECS container service, CoreOS with their array of tools. I don't feel like I can depend on any of these things, so I stick with the absolute bare minimum of what will build me a container. Which of these technologies will stay? Which will go? What will change as time passes? What will be deprecated? In all honesty with Kubernetes talking about supporting Rocket and probably any other container technology that creeps up in the next few years, I'm leaning towards using that as the point of stability which I can deploy anywhere and know that I get the exact same API. Google, the leader in cluster management writing open source orchestration technology, think that's where I'll keep my focus.

SEJeff 12y ago
My bet is on Redhat's project atomic, which uses Kubernetes under the hood and will eventually support Mesos for scheduling (via kubernetes).
- chuhnk 12y ago
  I think what Redhat is doing with Atomic and OpenShift is really great. They are building some awesome stuff around Kubernetes however I feel like that is going to be entirely geared towards the enterprise space. Much like OpenStack it's very complicated and the barrier to entry is still quite high. When I looked at the docs I immediately had to go look at reference info for all this new terminology they had introduced. They'd basically ignored what had come out of industry usage and naming. But in saying that, I do hope they cause massive shifts in the enterprise game. I have quite a bit of experience in the microservice and cluster management space and have started to prototype something much more accessible to the masses. I'll know within the space of 6-8 weeks whether it's actually going to work or not but nonetheless we need people who understand and use these technologies on a day to day basis in the general tech space.
  - jacques_chester 12y ago
    The next generation of OpenShift is largely hypothetical at the moment. Cloud Foundry already has a container-based PaaS and it's only getting better. And it's not tied to a single vendor. Disclaimer: I'm biased as hell, I work on CF for my dayjob.
    - SEJeff 12y ago
      No I've got no interest in OpenShift and wasn't referring to it, I was referring to Project Atomic[1] and the RHEL/Fedora/CentOS Atomic Host. [1] http://www.projectatomic.io/ http://www.projectatomic.io/
      - jacques_chester 12y ago
        Granted, but I was replying to chuhnk's comment, which mentioned both OpenShift and Atomic.
    - fatherlinnux 12y ago
      The current version of OpenShift (2.X) is essentially Linux container based (selinux, cgroups, kernel namespaces). OpenShift 2.X has been running in production for years now (openshift.com). The reason something like Docker wasn't used is because nothing existed, so Red Hat had to invent something. From an app perspective it's fairly good for what it does.
      - jacques_chester 12y ago
        Thanks for the correction, I was wrong. I do note that Warden uses a lot of the same primitives (as do several projects building on the facilities that arose or were repurposed for Linux-VServer, OpenVZ, LXC etc etc).
  - SEJeff 12y ago
    The exact same could be said for CoreOS :) I'd love to see what you're doing if you're open to sharing.
- qooleot 12y ago
  Just a single data point, but I went to a Redhat talk and their demos had several failing bugs. They also clicked around a lot, and said things like 'well, you now created an ip block, then designated an ip from the pool, but to make that actually work you need to...'. I'm not so sure Redhat will make things simple enough and "just work" for non-corporate clients.
dkhenry 12y ago
After this announcement. I am looking towards rocket more then docker for the future. They seem to have the building block concept down better then Docker who looks to be moving towards a VMWare style system where they are all things to all people.
Goopplesoft 12y ago
> I felt like in the beginning I could rely on Docker being focused on containers This whole "wheres docker going" thing is getting blown way out of proportion. Docker Swarm was built by ONLY 2 people on the docker team (https://github.com/docker/swarm/ https://github.com/docker/swarm/) and they are totally separate binaries. Thats like saying I cant use Google X anymore because Google is building Google Y... Some of these considerations are valid (vendor lockin, etc), but they've been valid for a long time. Nothing changed today or the day rocket was launched. Disclaimer: I like docker but I have no horse in this race, my only affiliation is using docker.

by chuhnk 12y ago

SEJeff 12y ago

My bet is on Redhat's project atomic, which uses Kubernetes under the hood and will eventually support Mesos for scheduling (via kubernetes).

chuhnk 12y ago
I think what Redhat is doing with Atomic and OpenShift is really great. They are building some awesome stuff around Kubernetes however I feel like that is going to be entirely geared towards the enterprise space. Much like OpenStack it's very complicated and the barrier to entry is still quite high. When I looked at the docs I immediately had to go look at reference info for all this new terminology they had introduced. They'd basically ignored what had come out of industry usage and naming. But in saying that, I do hope they cause massive shifts in the enterprise game. I have quite a bit of experience in the microservice and cluster management space and have started to prototype something much more accessible to the masses. I'll know within the space of 6-8 weeks whether it's actually going to work or not but nonetheless we need people who understand and use these technologies on a day to day basis in the general tech space.
- jacques_chester 12y ago
  The next generation of OpenShift is largely hypothetical at the moment. Cloud Foundry already has a container-based PaaS and it's only getting better. And it's not tied to a single vendor. Disclaimer: I'm biased as hell, I work on CF for my dayjob.
  - SEJeff 12y ago
    No I've got no interest in OpenShift and wasn't referring to it, I was referring to Project Atomic[1] and the RHEL/Fedora/CentOS Atomic Host. [1] http://www.projectatomic.io/ http://www.projectatomic.io/
    - jacques_chester 12y ago
      Granted, but I was replying to chuhnk's comment, which mentioned both OpenShift and Atomic.
  - fatherlinnux 12y ago
    The current version of OpenShift (2.X) is essentially Linux container based (selinux, cgroups, kernel namespaces). OpenShift 2.X has been running in production for years now (openshift.com). The reason something like Docker wasn't used is because nothing existed, so Red Hat had to invent something. From an app perspective it's fairly good for what it does.
    - jacques_chester 12y ago
      Thanks for the correction, I was wrong. I do note that Warden uses a lot of the same primitives (as do several projects building on the facilities that arose or were repurposed for Linux-VServer, OpenVZ, LXC etc etc).
- SEJeff 12y ago
  The exact same could be said for CoreOS :) I'd love to see what you're doing if you're open to sharing.
qooleot 12y ago
Just a single data point, but I went to a Redhat talk and their demos had several failing bugs. They also clicked around a lot, and said things like 'well, you now created an ip block, then designated an ip from the pool, but to make that actually work you need to...'. I'm not so sure Redhat will make things simple enough and "just work" for non-corporate clients.

dkhenry 12y ago

After this announcement. I am looking towards rocket more then docker for the future. They seem to have the building block concept down better then Docker who looks to be moving towards a VMWare style system where they are all things to all people.

Goopplesoft 12y ago

> I felt like in the beginning I could rely on Docker being focused on containers This whole "wheres docker going" thing is getting blown way out of proportion. Docker Swarm was built by ONLY 2 people on the docker team (https://github.com/docker/swarm/ https://github.com/docker/swarm/) and they are totally separate binaries. Thats like saying I cant use Google X anymore because Google is building Google Y... Some of these considerations are valid (vendor lockin, etc), but they've been valid for a long time. Nothing changed today or the day rocket was launched. Disclaimer: I like docker but I have no horse in this race, my only affiliation is using docker.