3 ms·

The reply seemed strong but on-point and reasonable. Why should Docker break compatibility and abandon what appears to be a pretty serious amount of consensus f

The reply seemed strong but on-point and reasonable. Why should Docker break compatibility and abandon what appears to be a pretty serious amount of consensus from a large number of pretty serious industry players, in order to comply with a startup's 3-day-old unfinished "standard" for their "we're building the next Docker, but incompatible with Docker, give us money now please" business plan? Especially when the request was not worded as "we're trying to standardize this, want to help out", but "we ARE the standard, comply with us". CoreOS comes off in this exchange looking the very worst sort of VC vaporware wannabes, and that's what I'm going to remember a year or two down the line (assuming they even still exist at that point) if faced with an actual choice involving them.

efuquen 12y ago
You realize the issue wasn't opened by someone at CoreOS, or the discussion before Solomon's diatribe wasn't forceful or in bad faith? @jfrazelle actually had the diplomatic answer right there, not this "defending my turf attitude". The attitude seems to be "you must use the Docker container spec or gtfo". That's not the attitude of a friendly OSS maintainer but more so of a private interest viciously protecting themselves. I had no negative opinion about either company but to me it's clear Solomon has come off very poorly and undiplomatic from this whole exchange. CoreOS has done nothing wrong, they are not obligated to do whatever Docker Inc. or Solomon wants them to do. And of course neither does Docker have to do whatever CoreOS maintainers might want of them, but one side is mudslinging and bickering while the other isn't, very childish IMHO.
- necrodawg 12y ago
  I'm sorry but this is exactly the kind of leadership Docker needs right now. He reminds me a bit of Linus Torvalds and Theo de Raadt in his responses. Doesn't take shit from anyone, doesn't try to please everyone and gets shit done. Exactly what Docker as a project is doing.
  - efuquen 12y ago
    Has Linus ever gotten bent out of shape at somebody for forking Linux (assuming they've done it while not violating the license)? Let alone someone who would decide to do their own clean implementation of a Linux like OS? I don't think that comparison makes much sense. EDIT: Let the users work this out, if Rocket fulfills a need for some people better than Docker does for CoreOS then it will become clear overtime. Docker does need leadership, but not by picking pointless fights.
    - necrodawg 12y ago
      I think you're referring to another post now. I doubt they eat the same breakfast either. I was specifically referring to this github ticket. I think the users have already decided, pretty much everyone uses docker already.
    - waps 12y ago
      > Has Linus ever gotten bent out of shape at somebody for forking Linux Nope. For forking Linux, changing the behaviour and then telling Linux to comply with it he has bitten several heads off though.
saryant 12y ago
How can CoreOS be called vaporware? They have products! I use them in production.
ademarre 12y ago
> Especially when the request was not worded as "we're trying to standardize this, want to help out", but "we ARE the standard, comply with us". Maybe I missed it, but I never got the impression that CoreOS was as bullish as you say. If Docker wasn't moving in the direction of container standardization, then someone needed to step up and do it, and I'm glad CoreOS is doing so. The final container standard 1.0 might not be based on CoreOS's proposal at all, and hopefully it's more compatible with today's de facto Docker containers, but the important thing is that standardization is part of the conversation now.

efuquen 12y ago

You realize the issue wasn't opened by someone at CoreOS, or the discussion before Solomon's diatribe wasn't forceful or in bad faith? @jfrazelle actually had the diplomatic answer right there, not this "defending my turf attitude". The attitude seems to be "you must use the Docker container spec or gtfo". That's not the attitude of a friendly OSS maintainer but more so of a private interest viciously protecting themselves. I had no negative opinion about either company but to me it's clear Solomon has come off very poorly and undiplomatic from this whole exchange. CoreOS has done nothing wrong, they are not obligated to do whatever Docker Inc. or Solomon wants them to do. And of course neither does Docker have to do whatever CoreOS maintainers might want of them, but one side is mudslinging and bickering while the other isn't, very childish IMHO.

necrodawg 12y ago
I'm sorry but this is exactly the kind of leadership Docker needs right now. He reminds me a bit of Linus Torvalds and Theo de Raadt in his responses. Doesn't take shit from anyone, doesn't try to please everyone and gets shit done. Exactly what Docker as a project is doing.
- efuquen 12y ago
  Has Linus ever gotten bent out of shape at somebody for forking Linux (assuming they've done it while not violating the license)? Let alone someone who would decide to do their own clean implementation of a Linux like OS? I don't think that comparison makes much sense. EDIT: Let the users work this out, if Rocket fulfills a need for some people better than Docker does for CoreOS then it will become clear overtime. Docker does need leadership, but not by picking pointless fights.
  - necrodawg 12y ago
    I think you're referring to another post now. I doubt they eat the same breakfast either. I was specifically referring to this github ticket. I think the users have already decided, pretty much everyone uses docker already.
  - waps 12y ago
    > Has Linus ever gotten bent out of shape at somebody for forking Linux Nope. For forking Linux, changing the behaviour and then telling Linux to comply with it he has bitten several heads off though.

saryant 12y ago

How can CoreOS be called vaporware? They have products! I use them in production.

ademarre 12y ago

> Especially when the request was not worded as "we're trying to standardize this, want to help out", but "we ARE the standard, comply with us". Maybe I missed it, but I never got the impression that CoreOS was as bullish as you say. If Docker wasn't moving in the direction of container standardization, then someone needed to step up and do it, and I'm glad CoreOS is doing so. The final container standard 1.0 might not be based on CoreOS's proposal at all, and hopefully it's more compatible with today's de facto Docker containers, but the important thing is that standardization is part of the conversation now.