Hacker News Reader

Comment by ridruejo | Hacker News Reader

I think the concern from third-parties is not so much about bloat or whether everything is bundled in the same binary but that by defining "the way" of doing things, you are taking the oxygen out of other ecosystem partners that have alternate approaches for doing so. You are making it pluggable but by having your official implementation it becomes the "de facto" standard.

By defining a standard way of orchestrating you make life easier for users that can deploy with confidence the same environment across multiple clouds, etc. BUT the tradeoff is that you alienate another set of parties (providers are commoditized, ecosystem partners offering alternate orchestration tools feel marginalized). Secondarily, there are concerns whether your approach is better than others and that is too early to tell.

I am curious to see how all this plays out, lots of things at stake here and a very thick fog of war :)

View on HN

As someone who has followed Docker since it was part of dotCloud, I can tell you that some standard practices will be great. I've seen dozens of different ways of doing similar things with Docker.

By creating these orthogonal solutions, Docker isn't taking the air out of anything. Do these solutions hurt Amazon's proprietary use cases? Or Google's? Or [insert managed Docker platform here]? No.

If anything, they just make it possible to use Docker without third parties. Maybe that's scary to third parties, but there's no reason a company shouldn't compete in its own ecosystem as long as it doesn't unfairly punish competition.

So if Docker acts like modern-day Microsoft for enterprise, where solutions are sold from many vendors with many mixes of products, then great.

If they act like Apple, where they crush and eliminate overlapping services, then I guess we'll all be switching to the CoreOS containers someday...

Anyone who has used Docker for more than a trivial app sees the need for orchestration. If the requirement is that obvious then it clearly needs to be part of the core.

Many many solutions have been meeting that need just fine and many new ones are still in the works. Adding a new solution will not help things.

Yeah it will.

At the moment I have to choose between multiple competing solutions. Competition is good when there are strong differentiating features.

In the "Orchestrate Docker" field the requirements are so clear after using it for your first project that it isn't at all clear what benefit competition, or solutions outside of the core Docker product suite gives.

We are using Docker to package an on-prem product.

As the ecosystem is recent and evolving quickly, we are looking at ways to handle multiple containers and deploy them at scale. And often, there are several solutions.

Having docker provide the set of components (and it's great to have multiple components for that) helps in defining a standard direction.

And as long as all the components are open source and can be deployed on our end, we are glad to use them. We would consider switching if somehow the docker tools become tied to a proprietary service or tool, which is unacceptable for our customers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com