Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Great news for everyone except for VMWare (this is a simple compelling operating system for data centers that spans both windows and mac) and Openshift (which was one of the few viable ways of actually purchasing Kubernetes support). A lot of egos on both sides had to be suppressed to make this happen. Docker Swarm was a key driver in making Kubernetes popular because everyone realized that they needed swarm, but the implementation was so poor, no one could use it. That kicked K8s up into hyperdrive. Parts of the K8s community have been particularly partisan in doing everything they can to minimize docker.

Hopefully both sides _now_ come together and sing kumbaya, and we don't see a continuing KDE versus Gnome war a embrace and extend attitude by Docker or a continuing push to marginalize docker by the Kubernetes folks.




Surpressing egos usually means one has found a joker to beat the other in the fight for leadership. I don't think that battle is over yet, though. It's a very strong move Docker does here, but at the same time k8s is considering choosing another container engine as their main component. Currently at least in Enterprise k8s has a lot more traction than docker (I personally love docker more, but every day need to focus 99% of my effort on k8s because of that).

And given enterprise support Openshift is still ongoing as the best solution. They are afaik the only ones that offer a complete set of answers to most questions you can have in the PaaS space. Everybody else is like "here's an API, choose one of 3 billion plugins" (just thinking CNI here). In the end for the customer it doesn't matter though. Customers just want things to run smoothly and if possible reduce their maintenance work force. They don't want choices, they want solutions.


Yes, but guess what, Docker CNI is now going to be supported, so CNI is no longer a issue. Ingress will still be a issue, but Openshift is still doing their own random route thing there anyways.

Being low on the stack is a power move. It's like a NFL lineman, the lower player has considerably higher leverage then the higher player. Docker can go in, run Kubeadm legitimately, but use Docker based CNI and volume plugins and displace Openshift.

Plus, Openshift is _12k_ a application node on AWS: https://www.openshift.com/dedicated/index.html#pricing


Interesting idea, but reality looks different. Everything underneath the PaaS layer becomes less and less important. With container engines it may be hard to see for most people yet, I have to admit that. But with OS and hardware you can see it. E.g. think about what OS you run your PaaS on. It doesn't matter. The only limit here is integration with Docker/Kubernetes. If these are available on the OS then it doesn't matter which one you choose. That's also why many people now start to use complete unmodified OS images that don't update individual packages anymore but the whole OS layer together or nothing. Then hardware. Would you say anybody running k8s has an advantage when running on a super computer compared to a cluster of hundreds of desktop computers? Probably not.


Full disclosure: I work for Red Hat Consulting as an OpenShift Consultant.

That's for OpenShift Dedicated, in which you're literally buying dedicated engineer & support time along with IaaS, PaaS plus our AWS costs.

OpenShift in on-premise or cloud environments comes in a different pricing structure based on (v)Cores or CPU Sockets.


> or a continuing push to marginalize docker by the Kubernetes folks.

It's not like kubernetes folks very pushing to marginalize docker for bad reasons. docker runtime was one of the bottlenecks of kubernetes in production and docker inc didn't feel like improving it. Hopefully, it is changing now.

There are some technical decisions in docker that could provide similar functionality with better production support. I am not expert and just saying what I heard from dev working on it: for example, btrfs would work better than overlayfs for COW file system or docker would be better of using parts of systemd rather than implementing everything from scratch.


That's always been the struggle Docker engine had though - people demand it to be "production ready" and stable but also criticize it for not "innovating" enough technically. Docker didn't always do the best job prioritizing stability over features to be sure, but they did do a good job pushing critical innovations like registry v2 forward.


VMWare's k8s play is Pivotal Container Services, or PKS (blame Google). It's a three-way joint project between Pivotal, Google and VMWare.

I've said before and I'll say again: Red Hat, Microsoft and Google (and Pivotal and VMWare) are going to wind up making more money from Docker than Docker Inc does. Kubernetes has swept the field at the container-orchestrator level, the rest is a fight for the upper part of the stack.

Disclosure: I work for Pivotal, though not on PKS.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: