Re:Running containers without Docker
by jacques_chester on Thursday October 27, 2016 @07:02AM
(#12804094)
> In my view it is unlikely to work for Docker.
Docker has realised the money is in the platform. So they're competing against Red Hat, who have OpenShift.
They're also my employers, Pivotal, and IBM, and HP, and SAP and every other company with a Cloud Foundry distribution.
The problem for Docker is that Red Hat, Pivotal et al started with selling an entire platform to F1000s. Docker and Kubernetes have great groundswell in the community, but the difference is that Docker need to make money from a sold platform and Google don't -- their play is GCP.
> For orchestration solution they are engineering against Google's Kubernetes.
Let's not forget Mesos, Nomad, Diego (the Cloud Foundry bits) and so on. And yes, it turns out this problem is actually very hard. Much harder than it looks.
> Due to Docker's need to protect their business model, there is no true community in the sense that there is an open exchange of ideas.
This is one of the reasons Pivotal donated Cloud Foundry IP to the Cloud Foundry Foundation, and it's why the Foundation rules are written to grant voting rights to members which contribute engineering effort. Red Hat are relevant as a large and critical part of an ecosystem. So it is for other successful OSS companies. But being the "owner" tends not to go as well. People who buy from us want to know that they can switch to IBM without much disruption and vice versa.
> This situation would make it hard for Docker to justify their valuation.
I can't blame them for trying. And I suppose they didn't see Kubernetes coming to suck the oxygen out of a big part of their platform.
The weird story of Docker will be of a company that created a PaaS, abandoned it for a component, then tried to build a PaaS.
Disclosure: as I noted above, I work for Pivotal. As Docker moves into platforms, we are competitors. Though we cooperate on runC.
Docker has realised the money is in the platform. So they're competing against Red Hat, who have OpenShift.
They're also my employers, Pivotal, and IBM, and HP, and SAP and every other company with a Cloud Foundry distribution.
The problem for Docker is that Red Hat, Pivotal et al started with selling an entire platform to F1000s. Docker and Kubernetes have great groundswell in the community, but the difference is that Docker need to make money from a sold platform and Google don't -- their play is GCP.
> For orchestration solution they are engineering against Google's Kubernetes.
Let's not forget Mesos, Nomad, Diego (the Cloud Foundry bits) and so on. And yes, it turns out this problem is actually very hard. Much harder than it looks.
> Due to Docker's need to protect their business model, there is no true community in the sense that there is an open exchange of ideas.
This is one of the reasons Pivotal donated Cloud Foundry IP to the Cloud Foundry Foundation, and it's why the Foundation rules are written to grant voting rights to members which contribute engineering effort. Red Hat are relevant as a large and critical part of an ecosystem. So it is for other successful OSS companies. But being the "owner" tends not to go as well. People who buy from us want to know that they can switch to IBM without much disruption and vice versa.
> This situation would make it hard for Docker to justify their valuation.
I can't blame them for trying. And I suppose they didn't see Kubernetes coming to suck the oxygen out of a big part of their platform.
The weird story of Docker will be of a company that created a PaaS, abandoned it for a component, then tried to build a PaaS.
Disclosure: as I noted above, I work for Pivotal. As Docker moves into platforms, we are competitors. Though we cooperate on runC.