Hacker News Reader

Comment by lenovouser | Hacker News Reader

Nice, no features anymore for CE. I really love the path Docker has taken in the past months...

I wish I could switch to rkt, but there are so many things such as docker-compose which don't exist as equivalent for rkt yet.

View on HN

> Nice, no features anymore for CE

What do you mean by that? Docker CE will continue to ship features in exactly the same way as before. If anything the new monthly edge releases will allow us to ship features faster. A common complaint from enterprise customers was that they were tied to the same release trains as the community version. Now that the CE and EE releases are clearly distinct, CE has more flexibility to move fast.

We'll see about that

Not sure about this, generally I have the feeling that Docker doesn't really care anymore about making a great open source container engine. They've never listened to the people who pointed out flaws in Docker which then made these guys start working on rkt. I've had a ton of issues with Docker and IPTables, Multi Host Networking, IPv6 etc. - there were solutions available most of the time but it always takes ages for them to merge it in (5+ months in some cases) or even care about basic issues such as not being able to run IPTables with docker because it bypasses IPTables en total. Adding a EE will definitely not make things better, in my opinion even worse. I think most "new" features will be put into EE so that they can bait enterprises into buying it. But maybe I am mistaken, we'll see. Like I said, not sure about it.

That's how it always starts. EE gets introduced, Company assures everyone they will have the same features then CE goes down the hill in time. I want to believe you though.

What's hilarious is that Docker is frequently criticized for "moving too fast" and "adding too many features". Now it seems we're going to be suspected of not adding enough features... Which is it?

I don't think this is the intention. Personally, I think the name "CE" is a bit unfortunate, as it implies what you said. However, for the time-being at least, I would expect the core Docker engine to remain the same between CE and EE.

One reason for the name change is to clarify that Docker is a product. If you're looking to use Docker as a low-level component to run containers as part of another product, then you should not use Docker: instead you should use containerd, which we have spun out of Docker for exactly that reason.

A few resources about containerd:

https://containerd.tools

https://blog.docker.com/2017/02/containerd-summit-recap-slid...

Yes, I understand. I would just like the messaging to stress that the engine or containerd or low-level component x is the same between CE and EE and will continue to be.

That makes perfect sense. I will pass along the feedback. Thanks!

I think a thing you're suffering from here is that for most of us the central example of 'thing added CE, made enterprise version more obvious' is mysql post-Oracle-acquisition, which eventually resulted in two forks because CE became a red-headed stepchild that almost never got any features and they worked as hard as possible to hide on the website.

If you consider people to be reacting based on an expectation that you're quite possibly going to do the exact same thing, this thread makes significantly more sense - or at least it does to me.

Exactly what, if anything, can/should be done about this, I'm not sure. But I think that's probably what's going on.

That's understandable. Many of us at Docker are from a more C/Unix/ops background so we're less sensitive to that cultural reference.

In any case, in the end actions speak louder than words. If we consistently ship solid, open code that actually solves problem, and no frankenstein crippleware materializes... Then we will gradually earn the trust of more and more people.

FWIW, we took some of our inspiration from the original RHEL/Fedora fork by Red Hat in the early 2000s. And more recently from the Gitlab CE/EE product positioning.

Thanks for being inspired by us and for helping to make the CE/EE convention more popular. I have no doubt you'll continue to ship many new features as part of CE.

Do you have some sort of notification on Gitlab mentions in HN comments? :)

For the record, I'm at least opsish so it didn't bother me too much directly either. But it did explain my confusion at most of this thread, so I figured I'd offer the thought. Free idea, worth exactly what you paid ;)

IMO, rkt is great since it's simple. Although I do agree in regards in how to build multi-container applications.

rkt's unit of execution is pods; most users are simply running pods with only one container, though.

rktnetes leverages the fact that rkt can natively execute a whole pod to avoid a lot of the extra code integrating with Kubernetes that docker requires.

Does anyone here have a good guide for moving from Docker and docker-compose to rkt and related tooling?

I like what I'm hearing about rkt but I'm having a lot of trouble even getting a single simple container image together, let alone run it...

http://kompose.io/ is part of the Kubernetes project (in incubation) — https://github.com/kubernetes-incubator/kompose

Reply on news.ycombinator.com