For one thing, it has about a hundred ™ symbols. Maybe lawyers are an untapped market for containers. It's also propping up Pivotal's fork of Docker that doesn't get much love.
It is a minimal linux install intended for non-native hosts to run Docker containers, say on a Mac or in a VMware cluster. You could use it for production workloads, certainly, but it doesn't provide any of the management tools that CoreOS provides.
From a quick review, this looks more like RedHat Atomic than CoreOS.
CoreOS uses an A/B partition swap for atomic updates while the vmware OS uses RPM (god knows why).
Also, this seems to be huge compared to the minimal (20MB) option of just using RancherOS.
IF I can use CoreOS and get ETCD, Fleet and both Docker and App containers, why would I use something from VMware ?
Does anyone see any value in using this thing ?,
The entire point o using something like CoreOS or Red Hat atomic with Docker is to stop paying VMware thousands of dollars for each server. why would I use a VMware OS on a VMware hypervisor when I can just use Docker on CoreOS on physical HW and get better performance and more flexibility for free ?
And the entire security thing seems like noise. the real security issue is what running inside the VM and not the cross VM security. containers can be made more secure and more manageable than vmware, simply because they can be automated better.
>The entire point o using something like CoreOS or Red Hat atomic with Docker is to stop paying VMware thousands of dollars for each server.
No, it isn't.
Containers (and app containers) are not competitors to, replacements for, or equivalent to traditional virt. While there's some overlap in cases where there's deployment from golden templates or glance images or AMIs or whatever just to get isolated apps, traditional virtualization and containers are complementary technologies.
