4 ms·

While it is scary when a company takes its initial success in the technology scene and uses it to expand into its verticals, this is not quite the same case as

by potto 12y ago

While it is scary when a company takes its initial success in the technology scene and uses it to expand into its verticals, this is not quite the same case as the Microsoft analogy...Docker is open source, after all. I think the backlash that CoreOS started with its Rocket / AppContainer announcement ahead of DockerCon has caused some knee-jerk reactions. Does Docker's expansion into orchestration and clustering endanger CoreOS and maybe other players? Certainly. Is it the same approach? Definitely not. The CoreOS approach to containerization using Docker, and now Rocket, is novel. I haven't considered it for any of the architectures I'm presently building for companies - I prefer to let the operating system do what it does best, and build my services on top using containerization. I was worried about what Docker's plans for clustering entailed leading up to today. I have been using Mesos for the better part of a year, and see it answering many problems that reach beyond the container model. I think people should do as you suggest, and re-evaluate this on two fronts: 1) Swarm is separate from Docker, so we can continue to deploy Docker through Mesosphere Marathon onto Mesos as we've been doing. 2) Because scheduling is pluggable - as the source code validates for us - we can work in Mesos as we see fit. As for the proposal, I vote to keep Compose (and the fig codebase ;) ) separate. It will be much easier to add the hooks necessary to do cluster management between Compose and Swarm without risking regressions to Docker. Also - what has become of the Docker Governance Advisory Board? I think the ratification of a standard / specification would go a long way to solidify trust in the industry (much like CoreOS is trying to do with their App Container proposal). - Paul

jbeda 12y ago
The advisory board is just that -- advisory. It has no teeth. All approval of anything goes through Docker.com/Solomon. It is worth reading through the notes from the last/only meeting: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JfWNzfwptsMgSx82QyWH_Aj0DRKyZKxYQ1aursxNorg/edit https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JfWNzfwptsMgSx82QyWH_Aj0...
- potto 12y ago
  Have you participated in any other open source projects? All of them with any success in the community (that I can think of) have a monarchy or oligarchy at the head. Anyone may contribute, and a group of committers review and add if the contribution fits the project... who determines what the project and its roadmap? Usually a select few, driven by even fewer or just one. So I don't think it's necessarily unusual that Solomon heads it. As an aside - I've watched headless projects devolve into anarchy... here's a good read from years ago - http://ariya.blogspot.com/2008/03/common-characteristics-of-failed-open.html http://ariya.blogspot.com/2008/03/common-characteristics-of-...
  - jbeda 12y ago
    You are right -- perhaps I'm being unfair. It is Docker's right to run their project as they see fit. I'm glad to see the new projects (swarm, at least) layered on top of Docker. It is good to see those sink/swim on their own. I was uncomfortable when Docker was (last week) going down the path of building everything into their existing binary.
    - 23david 12y ago
      You're more than fair. They made the rules, and I guess they can break the rules. But really, the value of the project lies in the community's continued support and backing of the project. The good thing is that this is open-source Apache-licensed code. Easy enough to fork it if necessary, even if just temporarily while we wait for another project to mature and replace it. Hudson -> Jenkins Mysql -> MariaDB Docker -> ???
      - throwaway_nsa 12y ago
        You should curb the anti-American attitude or we will make sure you do.
      - throwawaynsa 12y ago
        You should curb the anti-Americanism or we will do it for you.
    - choppaface 12y ago
      Even if they were in the main binary, do the technical consequences really outweigh the politics? Joe I can appreciate the drive to aggressively monetize a specific business model ;) but if you really feel what you've seen at Google should win, you'll have much more leverage taking a pedagogical approach. Appreciate that you have certain duties.... perhaps you might have had more agency at Facebook?
  - justincormack 12y ago
    FreeBSD has no monarchy. Nor does the Apache process.
- 23david 12y ago
  Agreed. I'm very confused about how the concerns from the advisory board are (not) being addressed in an open manner. From reading the minutes, it seemed to me like one of the clear conclusions (based on concerns raised by big stakeholders) was that Docker Inc. was going to be firewalled from the Docker open-source project and that development work going forward was going to be done in a more open fashion.
  - shykes 12y ago
    All of these things have happened. Do you have specific evidence of the contrary? I gave a presentation on this topic at Dockercon today, it talks about how the project is organized, how the company is firewalled, and recent improvements we're working on since the DGAB. I will share the link with you once the video is available.
shykes 12y ago
Thanks for the comments. The advisory board met last month. Here is a writeup http://blog.docker.com/2014/11/docker-governance-advisory-board-output-of-first-meeting/ http://blog.docker.com/2014/11/docker-governance-advisory-bo... There is also a link to full minutes.
- 23david 12y ago
  Speaking for the DevOps, a large part of the job is being responsible for building trusted systems from trusted components. I want to continue considering Docker to be part of that trusted stack, but from looking at the minutes, it seems that you are willing to mislead even large partners like Google while on the record. JB (Google): Docker is an anchor of a large ecosystem of projects. Docker Inc bought Fig, is it a separate project or is it going to be in Docker? SH: it should be explicit. The Fig guys make proposals and those are reviewed as every body else's. JB (Google): The idea is we will be more comfortable if we know how to contribute both to Docker and the larger ecosystem. SH: The day after Docker Inc. acquired Fig nothing changed at all, everything is still in the Open. The reason for the acquisition was to make Docker more user friendly. The experience should be awesome. The more people we can throw at the problem the better. VL: Understanding what is off limits or at least where the limits are would be helpful. This is entirely driven by technology? We can collaborate "here" but maybe we can compete "there". BG: It's absolutely right, there is a large number of projects competing with Docker Inc. and that's fine. Some folks want Docker to remain a packaging format. We should add a statement there on clarifying this. Source (both as github gist and google doc): https://gist.github.com/inthecloud247/00eb3130f728b635db9e https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JfWNzfwptsMgSx82QyWH_Aj0DRKyZKxYQ1aursxNorg Just today, the "Host management" proposal initiated by a Fig developer was closed (by him) without any discussion after he released the new Docker Machine project (which AFAIK was initiated without any public discussion or warning.) https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/8681 https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/8681
  - smt88 12y ago
    I definitely haven't scrutinized this as much as you have, but I don't see the scandal here. Docker Machine is separate from Docker. Once Machine was released, what was the point of talking about integrating the functionality into Docker? They've repeatedly stated that they want Machine and Swarm to be totally separate tools.

by potto 12y ago

jbeda 12y ago

The advisory board is just that -- advisory. It has no teeth. All approval of anything goes through Docker.com/Solomon. It is worth reading through the notes from the last/only meeting: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JfWNzfwptsMgSx82QyWH_Aj0DRKyZKxYQ1aursxNorg/edit https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JfWNzfwptsMgSx82QyWH_Aj0...

potto 12y ago
Have you participated in any other open source projects? All of them with any success in the community (that I can think of) have a monarchy or oligarchy at the head. Anyone may contribute, and a group of committers review and add if the contribution fits the project... who determines what the project and its roadmap? Usually a select few, driven by even fewer or just one. So I don't think it's necessarily unusual that Solomon heads it. As an aside - I've watched headless projects devolve into anarchy... here's a good read from years ago - http://ariya.blogspot.com/2008/03/common-characteristics-of-failed-open.html http://ariya.blogspot.com/2008/03/common-characteristics-of-...
- jbeda 12y ago
  You are right -- perhaps I'm being unfair. It is Docker's right to run their project as they see fit. I'm glad to see the new projects (swarm, at least) layered on top of Docker. It is good to see those sink/swim on their own. I was uncomfortable when Docker was (last week) going down the path of building everything into their existing binary.
  - 23david 12y ago
    You're more than fair. They made the rules, and I guess they can break the rules. But really, the value of the project lies in the community's continued support and backing of the project. The good thing is that this is open-source Apache-licensed code. Easy enough to fork it if necessary, even if just temporarily while we wait for another project to mature and replace it. Hudson -> Jenkins Mysql -> MariaDB Docker -> ???
    - throwaway_nsa 12y ago
      You should curb the anti-American attitude or we will make sure you do.
    - throwawaynsa 12y ago
      You should curb the anti-Americanism or we will do it for you.
  - choppaface 12y ago
    Even if they were in the main binary, do the technical consequences really outweigh the politics? Joe I can appreciate the drive to aggressively monetize a specific business model ;) but if you really feel what you've seen at Google should win, you'll have much more leverage taking a pedagogical approach. Appreciate that you have certain duties.... perhaps you might have had more agency at Facebook?
- justincormack 12y ago
  FreeBSD has no monarchy. Nor does the Apache process.
23david 12y ago
Agreed. I'm very confused about how the concerns from the advisory board are (not) being addressed in an open manner. From reading the minutes, it seemed to me like one of the clear conclusions (based on concerns raised by big stakeholders) was that Docker Inc. was going to be firewalled from the Docker open-source project and that development work going forward was going to be done in a more open fashion.
- shykes 12y ago
  All of these things have happened. Do you have specific evidence of the contrary? I gave a presentation on this topic at Dockercon today, it talks about how the project is organized, how the company is firewalled, and recent improvements we're working on since the DGAB. I will share the link with you once the video is available.

shykes 12y ago

Thanks for the comments. The advisory board met last month. Here is a writeup http://blog.docker.com/2014/11/docker-governance-advisory-board-output-of-first-meeting/ http://blog.docker.com/2014/11/docker-governance-advisory-bo... There is also a link to full minutes.

23david 12y ago
Speaking for the DevOps, a large part of the job is being responsible for building trusted systems from trusted components. I want to continue considering Docker to be part of that trusted stack, but from looking at the minutes, it seems that you are willing to mislead even large partners like Google while on the record. JB (Google): Docker is an anchor of a large ecosystem of projects. Docker Inc bought Fig, is it a separate project or is it going to be in Docker? SH: it should be explicit. The Fig guys make proposals and those are reviewed as every body else's. JB (Google): The idea is we will be more comfortable if we know how to contribute both to Docker and the larger ecosystem. SH: The day after Docker Inc. acquired Fig nothing changed at all, everything is still in the Open. The reason for the acquisition was to make Docker more user friendly. The experience should be awesome. The more people we can throw at the problem the better. VL: Understanding what is off limits or at least where the limits are would be helpful. This is entirely driven by technology? We can collaborate "here" but maybe we can compete "there". BG: It's absolutely right, there is a large number of projects competing with Docker Inc. and that's fine. Some folks want Docker to remain a packaging format. We should add a statement there on clarifying this. Source (both as github gist and google doc): https://gist.github.com/inthecloud247/00eb3130f728b635db9e https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JfWNzfwptsMgSx82QyWH_Aj0DRKyZKxYQ1aursxNorg Just today, the "Host management" proposal initiated by a Fig developer was closed (by him) without any discussion after he released the new Docker Machine project (which AFAIK was initiated without any public discussion or warning.) https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/8681 https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/8681
- smt88 12y ago
  I definitely haven't scrutinized this as much as you have, but I don't see the scandal here. Docker Machine is separate from Docker. Once Machine was released, what was the point of talking about integrating the functionality into Docker? They've repeatedly stated that they want Machine and Swarm to be totally separate tools.