3 ms·

Runc is the neutral implementation of the new open container standard that was created with the Appc guys at the table. Although not stated explicitely, the ope

Runc is the neutral implementation of the new open container standard that was created with the Appc guys at the table. Although not stated explicitely, the open standard will most probably supersede the appc spec

wereHamster 11y ago
Was appc not open enough? Or unfixable? Why create yet another standard?
- derekchiang 11y ago
  As noted in the parent comment, the Open Container Format will supersede appc. It will also adopt a lot of the ideas from appc, as noted in the CoreOS announcement [1]. [1] https://coreos.com/blog/app-container-and-the-open-container-project/ https://coreos.com/blog/app-container-and-the-open-container...
- callahad 11y ago
  To allow all of the involved parties to save face? In this case, no one is acquiescing to anyone else, and AppC can get presented as a great Coming Together by the tech press. Everyone wins.
- Alupis 11y ago
  > Was appc not open enough? Or unfixable? Why create yet another standard? Based on history between Docker and ACI/Appc, I'd wager Docker didn't want to fully submit to a standard they had zero input on (should note they elected to have zero input, snubbed their nose at it, and declared their own "open" standard). It's likely this new standard was the CoreOS team compromising with Docker to include them in the circle. Ultimately it will yield portable containers and a better ecosystem. A big win for the community and users. As has been said before, an Open Standard is far superior to an Open Implementation.
  - chc 11y ago
    As far as I can tell, the Docker folks weren't consulted when CoreOS was developing Rocket and App Container. They certainly seemed to be surprised when it was announced.
    - Alupis 11y ago
      > They certainly seemed to be surprised when it was announced. Yes they were, but they really should not have been. Docker had started with a rough draft of an open specification, but then removed it. Every time the idea was brought up, it was shot down. Docker viewed it as a strategic move to not have an open spec that anyone could implement and use container images with. However, with such a critical piece of technology, it was unreasonable to expect no one else to want it to have a common standard format which could be interchangeable with other container runtime implementations. So I suspect the "surprise" was more "anger" than anything. > As far as I can tell, the Docker folks weren't consulted when CoreOS was developing Rocket and App Container. Right, they were not consulted prior to it's public release. However ACI was an open standard and actively requested contributions to help shape it. ACI was very early when it was released and needed implementations to help shake out the bugs. At that point, Docker actively refused to participate, and instead a week later cooked up their own "open" implementation which was nothing more than rough documentation of how Docker behaves internally (not something a person could write an implementation against). Initially Docker staffers seemed excited to contribute, but it got shot down quickly by shykes. See these github issues: https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/9538 https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/9538 https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/10643 https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/10643 And there was shykes' rampage when CoreOS made the initial announcement, which began with this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8683705 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8683705 So, it's not surprising that, fast forwarding to today, concessions had to be made in order for Docker to save face and not appear to cave into public demand for a standardized open format that no single for-profit organization controlled entirely. Now both parties get good PR for working together and settling their differences, and the community gets a truly open standard from which, I expect, a great many implementations will arise.

wereHamster 11y ago

Was appc not open enough? Or unfixable? Why create yet another standard?

derekchiang 11y ago
As noted in the parent comment, the Open Container Format will supersede appc. It will also adopt a lot of the ideas from appc, as noted in the CoreOS announcement [1]. [1] https://coreos.com/blog/app-container-and-the-open-container-project/ https://coreos.com/blog/app-container-and-the-open-container...
callahad 11y ago
To allow all of the involved parties to save face? In this case, no one is acquiescing to anyone else, and AppC can get presented as a great Coming Together by the tech press. Everyone wins.
Alupis 11y ago
> Was appc not open enough? Or unfixable? Why create yet another standard? Based on history between Docker and ACI/Appc, I'd wager Docker didn't want to fully submit to a standard they had zero input on (should note they elected to have zero input, snubbed their nose at it, and declared their own "open" standard). It's likely this new standard was the CoreOS team compromising with Docker to include them in the circle. Ultimately it will yield portable containers and a better ecosystem. A big win for the community and users. As has been said before, an Open Standard is far superior to an Open Implementation.
- chc 11y ago
  As far as I can tell, the Docker folks weren't consulted when CoreOS was developing Rocket and App Container. They certainly seemed to be surprised when it was announced.
  - Alupis 11y ago
    > They certainly seemed to be surprised when it was announced. Yes they were, but they really should not have been. Docker had started with a rough draft of an open specification, but then removed it. Every time the idea was brought up, it was shot down. Docker viewed it as a strategic move to not have an open spec that anyone could implement and use container images with. However, with such a critical piece of technology, it was unreasonable to expect no one else to want it to have a common standard format which could be interchangeable with other container runtime implementations. So I suspect the "surprise" was more "anger" than anything. > As far as I can tell, the Docker folks weren't consulted when CoreOS was developing Rocket and App Container. Right, they were not consulted prior to it's public release. However ACI was an open standard and actively requested contributions to help shape it. ACI was very early when it was released and needed implementations to help shake out the bugs. At that point, Docker actively refused to participate, and instead a week later cooked up their own "open" implementation which was nothing more than rough documentation of how Docker behaves internally (not something a person could write an implementation against). Initially Docker staffers seemed excited to contribute, but it got shot down quickly by shykes. See these github issues: https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/9538 https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/9538 https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/10643 https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/10643 And there was shykes' rampage when CoreOS made the initial announcement, which began with this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8683705 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8683705 So, it's not surprising that, fast forwarding to today, concessions had to be made in order for Docker to save face and not appear to cave into public demand for a standardized open format that no single for-profit organization controlled entirely. Now both parties get good PR for working together and settling their differences, and the community gets a truly open standard from which, I expect, a great many implementations will arise.