Re:WTF is a container?
by pm90 on Monday October 17, 2016 @06:57AM
(#12723972)
What really surprises me about Google is why they don't open source some of these great core technologies (MapReduce, Containers etc.) instead of publishing theory as academic papers. On the one hand, it may be a great way of promoting the creating of these tools from the ground up, inspired by the theory alone. On the other hand, Google's invaluable experience with using these technologies probably means their versions are more stable, faster, resilient etc.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Kubernetes:
Google Container Engine:
https://cloud.google.com/container-engine/
Open-source MapReduce implementation:
https://gigaom.com/2015/02/18/google-open-sources-a-mapreduc...
Dataflow [aka Flume]:
Re:WTF is a container?
by jameskegel on Monday October 17, 2016 @07:22AM
(#12724066)
Kubernetes just got a pretty sweet update as well. The improvements to the dashboard alone were worth revisiting.
Re:WTF is a container?
by brazzledazzle on Monday October 17, 2016 @12:06PM
(#12726319)
I think they've said in talks/presentations that the challenge they have with some stuff (like Borg) is that they can't really extract individual components. It's all too tightly coupled. It wouldn't be fair to ask them to open source their whole stack. The fact that they took the lessons learned and created Kubernetes or published papers on their technologies is more than enough.
Why enable their competitors to such an extent? What benefit is in it for them, when they seem to be at the absolutely forefront of this work? They have to let their researchers publish academic papers or they won't get the best researchers, but when they also have the most experience with ops and such a lead in implementation, the theory only gets competitors so far.
It's entirely possible that they consider those core technologies part of their "magic sauce". If their development and production environments are so far ahead of everyone, their development cycle will be much faster.