I don't want OpenShift, it looks like a bloated clusterfuck. I don't want Atomic either -- Container Linux had all the pieces I needed and not much else, along with innovation just where it was needed (the update engine).
It might not mean much to Red Hat in the economical sense right now but Red Hat has gotten a red strike in my book from this. I won't forget. Corporate double speak/renegging on acqui-hired goodwill normally doesn't get me so riled up but man if my jimmies aren't rustled right now.
What does everyone else use for their server distros? Is debian the way to go? Ubuntu seems bloated but maybe I just don't know enough about the fat that is cut out of Ubuntu Server? CentOS and Fedora are stable but they seem like they update too slowly, is my assumption wrong?
[EDIT] - This post is likely an overreaction (again?) -- as pointed out by others the linked thread is from May 2018 -- so my reaction is very much delayed. If I had seen this thread when I made my decision to switch back to Container Linux, I wouldn't have.
I'll likely be moving to flatcar linux.
CoreOS is pretty well aligned with Fedora, so it makes sense for it to go there organizationally. And while it's inevitable that everything in Red Hat's orbit will have a clear path to OpenShift (and probably Ansible), I'm hopeful that this won't add any noticable overhead to CoreOS/CL itself.
> Fedora CoreOS is under active development and there are currently no downloads available. However, you will be able to download the images from one canonical location via the CoreOS and Fedora websites. The discussions around this development will happen on our community channels.
I actually really like Ansible -- it plays well with other tools, scales from small to large infrastructure management needs, and has great documentation with enough escape hatches to make hacky (but functional) solutions possible. I have less of a problem with ansible and more being forced to move more and more into tools that push me towards OpenShift when it doesn't make sense for me.
I used to prefer Chef, but then with CoreOS the dream started to come true, just pack up everything in a container, and 12-factor configure it and that's it, and now I just can't wait for k8s to eat the world, and we'll be back full circle with helm instead of yum/apt.
> What does everyone else use for their server distros? Is debian the way to go? Ubuntu seems bloated but maybe I just don't know enough about the fat that is cut out of Ubuntu Server? CentOS and Fedora are stable but they seem like they update too slowly, is my assumption wrong?
CentOS/RHEL stability is exactly the reason why I use it. Red Hat spends a lot of money on quality assurance, and it shows. It's a very different experience than Ubuntu, which has a lot more breakage.
The Kubernetes/OpenShift packaging is mostly independent of the host operating system. My applications inside the containers mostly run on Fedora, CentOS + Software Collections and even bleeding-edge Ubuntu, but I'm happy to run a stable OS underneath.
CentOS/RHEL 7 moves a lot faster than previous releases, too. They even rebased OpenSSL for 7.4 to get HTTP/2 support, all while maintaining ABI compatibility.
Fedora is - by design - a lot less stable than CentOS/RHEL - it's the fast-moving upstream project.
Flatcar Linux is generally available and we are committed to keeping it as a drop-in replacement for Container Linux for the long-term. We were excited about the idea of CoreOS when it was announced in 2013 and think it's a project worthy of sustaining.
Happy to answer questions about it.
Link, for those curious: https://www.flatcar-linux.org/
It's a fantastic distribution, and it's a pleasure to use.
I was mainly worried I'd be spending time downloading noveau/radeon drivers and associated packages on a server with no attached GPUs. I've been leaning towards languages that compile fat binaries (and running with docker regardless), so this is why I'm a little wary of Ubuntu bringing too much to the table. Also, it's been a long time since I ran Ubuntu on a personal machine, I am still a little worried about the risky the dist-upgrade process can be.
Basically all I feel I need is ufw, docker, ssh and was worried that Ubuntu brings too much along for the ride.
People also get overly bent out of shape for having Amazon search integration with the desktop at one point, which I did not like, but it had a clear, functional way to disable that function.
At least, those are my theories.
* Transactional updates. No interference with the deployments. You can rollback to any previous state.
* Smart separation of /, /etc and /var, using volumes and overlays properly.
* Using RPMs! I can tailor my installation with traditional RPMs, and the result will be updated at once.
* Zero maintenance. This is kind of magic for me, you create the initial deploy and the system upgrade itself, and rollback if a problem is detected. I wonder how well this works IRL
On the downside is still a bit new, but I found more information here 
Maybe there's someone out there that loves working with it and feels like it's worth the effort but I haven't seen many posts from them. Makes me feel like they're all stuck in corporate dungeons toiling away using stuff they were forced to use.
It's Kubernetes plus a PaaS platform that takes care of the annoying parts - deploying a cluster (using Ansible), container builds, triggers, deployments, a nice UI... Couldn't be happier.
Red Hat is a major Kubernetes contributor and OpenShift is barely lagging behind upstream k8s. It feels very polished and the documentation - while a bit overwhelming at times - is extremely helpful and extensive. Instead of forking Kubernetes, they only ever add new functionality while simultaneously upstreaming it. For example, the Kubernetes RBAC mechanism was contributed by Red Hat.
It's like Kubernetes... forked from it, but adds all this other shit while they continue to just say it is Kubernetes under the hood. Technically true, but once you go to the OpenShift you're pretty much locked into RedHat's Kubernetesesque-world.
I do think Red Hat replicates features that Kubernetes does well and trying to do those things well but they operate at different levels fundamentally -- Openshift is like a bunch of individual components that work together (usually at a lower level than Kubernetes does) and Kubernetes is like one coherent platform that smoothes over all the lower-level stuff (CRI, CSI, C*I)...
The way I personally see it, if you were ok with using an OS from a team of veteran Linux/open-source contributors in 2013 you should be ok with using one from a team of veteran Linux/open-source contributors in 2018. But this time it's from a team that does not take venture funding.
Lastly, it is telling that the ppl that have the most confidence in us pulling this off are the ppl we've worked with as clients or through open source collaborations. We're happy to start there and prove ourselves along the way to other.
I wish you the best of luck, choice is important for the ecosystem.
It's open for general use now. :)
So when the acquisition was announced, it was a rather easy decision to make; one that we'd already been considering. But knowing that it was also likely to face changes under new "owners" allows us to also be in the position of preserving a technology that we feel is fundamentally sound.
I'm only a novice Ignition user though, so I'd appreciate it if anyone could tell me what benefit it has over kickstart for provisioning nodes and clusters that makes Red Hat want to keep using it. Kickstart clearly has way more configurability for deciding how you want the host to be provisioned (at the expense of added complexity), so the only place I see Ignition adding value is that it's a really easy way to group nodes and assign roles by hostname, like a lightweight Cobbler install or something. Am I missing something else?
Basically it will only really matter for people running OpenShift.
I’ve been interested for about a year and gave Atomic a couple test drives, but with the CoreOS acquisition and so much overlap between these projects I’m wondering if RedHat actually has a plan for each of them.
Why not use the flatcar-linux model?!
Maintaining Kubernetes on Ubuntu with docker (vs rkt) is now just easier to handle.
With Fedora there are less feature updates and I can still go back to a previous release. And if I really need the cutting edge, I can cherry-pick packages from Rawhide.
With my experiences with RedHat, The only thing I've gleamed from it is that they are a mess with packages, and are their own 'standard.'
when even fortune50 have to drop your product they used for decades because of costs, that's a very clear indication of the end.
Take some time to review RH's annual statement from 2017. Think about where they were in 2013/14, where we are at today and what things might look like in 2023. I am interested to see how they navigate the market. There is a fleet of Titantic like vessels plowing through the enterprise ocean right now...it will be interesting to observe what plays out over the next 3-5 years.
They will do some crazy calculation and say, "well, aws will place the VM into a zillion machines, so that times our license per machine, plus our license per users per machine, you own us infinite dollars" ...it is that silly. If you don't trust me on this call them.