3 ms·
I see what Shykes is getting at though. I mean, if you want to use the rocket, then use the rocket. If you want to use docker, then how does adding another runt
by film42 12y ago
I see what Shykes is getting at though. I mean, if you want to use the rocket, then use the rocket. If you want to use docker, then how does adding another runtime help a docker user, when they could simply switch to rocket? I can understand how their might be a "convenience" factor, but if you're already actively deploying with docker images, then why bother with a separate image type?
Don't get me wrong, I think it's great the coreos guys are trying to make a bridge between the two projects, but so far, I don't see a need for this.
- bjt 12y agoRocket != App Container. This PR is about the latter. There are already non-Rocket implementations of the App Container spec. If I were a Docker user, and found some awesome app that only came packaged in App Container format, it'd be very valuable to have this compatibility.
- wmf 12y agoAre there any such apps in reality? Will there ever be?
- eropple 12y agoI'd like to use Rocket personally (I currently use Docker--while I think CoreOS's "containers everywhere" concept is a little misguided, I don't believe there's a good reason to have a permanent daemon, and if I need one I have Mesos) but make things I do easily available to Docker users. (Docker's beefs here feel more like a company defending their turf than an open-source project, and that troubles me.)