That is exactly the problem. Linux containerisation is done by building tooling that uses kernel-level features. You don't need a start-up with millions in VC funding to implement the basic feature-set. At the other end of the complexity scale, both flatpak and systemd-nspawn are more specialist containerisation tools, which are each largely the product of just one person.
Re:Talk of a Split from Docker
by cookiecaper on Tuesday August 30, 2016 @05:30PM
(#12394076)
Docker itself is part of that problem, not separate to it. They willingly accepted almost $200 million in venture capital. We all know what the VC game is. If they can't turn that $200M into a $5B+ exit, they lost.
Re:Talk of a Split from Docker
by dragonwriter on Wednesday August 31, 2016 @05:29PM
(#12401645)
> If they can't turn that $200M into a $5B+ exit, they lost.
Well, the VCs lost. Presumably, the people at Docker -- including the people who would do fantastically well with an exit that also made VCs happy -- are drawing paychecks, in some cases substantial ones, and will have in many cases done tolerably well (rather than have "lost") if no VC-friendly exit ever occurs.
Then it is indeed unfortunate that Docker is building infrastructure code which is tainted by the game theory surrounding the need for a unicorn valuation. Maybe that's the problem, instead of Docker itself.