Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
App Container Spec One Week In (coreos.com)
103 points by jzelinskie on Dec 9, 2014 | hide | past | web | favorite | 28 comments



"With discussions starting on implementing the spec in [...] Docker"

I guess that depends on who you ask at Docker...

https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/9538#issuecomment-65...

To be fair, the filing of this "Docker is not compatible with ACL" issue is a bit premature when the spec barely exists yet.


Sad that the issue was closed with a 3 paragraph long diatribe laced with venom. For someone that talked a lot about taking the high road from a PR perspective, Solomon has certainly not missed an opportunity to get really worked up in various forums over this.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


> 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.


> 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.


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


I don't see the venom. I see someone who is taking a lot of flak from internet experts and probably too eager to satisfy them, when such a thing is impossible.

What is Solomon supposed to do? He explained very clearly his thoughts about standards. It's actually a very reasonable (if a bit defensive) response.


I mean, the issue just says "support this standard" and it's an explosion of...I guess what is deemed as non-venom? He could have just closed it and said "Not at this time" or something like that.


The issue says and I quote:

    Docker should adhere to the App Container Image (ACI) specification.
That's a more forceful wording than "support this standard".

I might not have used the same tone as Solomon here but the issue is not exactly worded diplomatically either, particularly given the current tone right now around these two projects.


The issue you're quoting is from GitHub user SnakeDoc. I don't think he is affiliated with CoreOS.


Which has nothing to do with how strongly it's worded. Shykes is responding directly to user SnakeDoc in that issue not CoreOS.


Yes, you're right. Somehow I thought you were suggesting that the issue was posted by someone from CoreOS. My fault.

Nonetheless, I don't think it's written strongly at all. It's a succinct, plainly worded feature request. My favorite kind.


> Sad that the issue was closed with a 3 paragraph long diatribe laced with venom

It's a snarky bug report. It's like asking the Linux kernel to adhere to Microsoft' standards. Except in this case it would be a start-up with vaporware. I hope CoreOS makes rocket into something awesome, but it pretty arrogant to assume the huge project would start following a standard of a 3 day old project.


His tone sounds quite defensive with all this "CoreOS and container runtime" ordeal. That being said, it doesn't make him any less right. Heck, I don't know all of those forum posts you are talking about, but on this specific incident I can confidently say if I was him I would pretty much give the same kind of response.


Why is he right? Docker is good software but it's not that good. The implementation is all over the place and there are several implementations of the docker image registry for absolutely no good reason. Implementation defined standards are not a good thing and as it stands docker is an implementation defined standard. The larger community wins if there is an open and documented standard and that's exactly what the CoreOS guys are doing. Vendors of container related software should be competing on features and not trying to reverse engineer each others' implementations.


To see something that seemed overall to start like a cordial discussion devolve into that was really disheartening.


To be honest that issue seemed like a troll due to the phrasing and, based on the reaction, a pretty successful one.


I don't know about rest of you but at our company we went through a lot of pain dealing with CoreOS. If we had known sooner, I'd gladly have taken a minimal Ubuntu to run Docker over CoreOS. For one, requiring reboot to update is astrocious! Because of these experiences, I just don't much faith in CoreOS guys (at least not yet), and the standard they are creating I think kills the best aspect of Docker, the freedom!

And regards to @shykes response, he was right on all points. Who in their right mind would adopt a supposed "Standard" written only 3 days ago? Doesn't matter who wrote it, it is just very unreasonable to accept a Standard without putting it through the test of time. This is a Standard, once in place you can't really change later, so aren't you glad that they didn't just jump on things?

Also, if you are in Docker's position, why would you want to risk limiting yourself to a single standard? Things change, fads change, people come up with better ideas, etc... No one knows. Some may want a much simpler spec (I for one), others may want something more thorough and detailed, etc. Just let the people decide the standard and let it run it's course, eventually the best will come out on top.


at our company we went through a lot of pain dealing with CoreOS. If we had known sooner, I'd gladly have taken a minimal Ubuntu to run Docker over CoreOS. For one, requiring reboot to update is astrocious!

As someone who hasn't invested a lot of time in evaluating CoreOS yet I would be interested in hearing about what other pain points you encountered. The reboot to update requirement seems straightforward given what they state in their documentation https://coreos.com/using-coreos/updates/


For those looking for a little more context or who want to see the App Container Spec in action we recorded videos following the initial announce of Rocket -- the initial implementation of the spec.

Rocket & App Container Spec Overview by Brandon Philips - (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYgpaAZMe-E)

Rocket Tutorial and Demo by Kelsey Hightower - (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9WVjxaRkKU)

Google Hangout with CoreOS: Rocket and the App Container Spec - (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3UmFQbUsN8)


Is there any discussion around why you require all container images to be signed? I understand that you want to provide a means to identifying that user X signed (well key Y signed it -- hopefully that is user X) the container, but it's putting the cart before the horse.

Maybe I'm missing something, but this completely ignores that the biggest security issue is people and process. You can't require people to have good process. IMHO, requiring gpg signatures WEAKENS security, because the people that don't care or don't have strong security requirements are going to play fast and loose with their keys. If you don't require gpg signatures, you can let those people signal their lack of security by having "naked" images. (ie: a security audit will catch that really fast and then force a reasoned discussion about key trust)

Requiring gpg signatures gives the illusion that all of the images are somehow more secure.


I'm wondering whether it's a good idea to pay too much attention to a project early on in its design; whether it can lead to a worse interface/less iteration loops vs. a bunch of smart people working and iterating on an idea in private.


I tend to believe it's better to keep it private and then introduce it later on when a beta or alpha is done and get feedback then iterate.

People have too many opinions about stuff.


I think the hard part will be to try and stay focused and establish milestones. If everyone is giving input at the same time, it'll be extremely spread out and inefficient. Working towards the first few releases (0.1, 0.2, etc..) you need to be really focused on your priorities and not distracted by the big picture too much.




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

Search: