> CoreOS is an operating that can only run Docker and is exclusively intended to run Docker.
This shows an astonishing level of ignorance for someone who claims to have done their research.
> First, the main benefit of Docker is to unify dev and production. Having a separate OS in production only for containers totally ruins this point.
What? This makes no sense. Your images will be the same between dev and prod, even if the host running the containers is different - which is really the whole point - if you build and run an image in dev, it should run identically in prod.
> If you like playing with fire, it looks like that’s the OS of choice.
We spent the last year+ running containers on Centos7 with no problems from the OS. Whatever issues we did encounter were either transient bugs with Docker or our own configuration. Perhaps we got super lucky, but we were running 120+ containers on 12 hosts, so I would've expected at least some evidence of significant problems within that timeframe if it were really such a risky setup.
> It’s not possible to build a stable product on a broken core, yet both Pivotal and RedHat are trying.
We've been running OpenShift Origin since March of last year, it's been very stable during that time - the few issues we did encounter were due to our own mistakes, and were usually fixed just by changing some configuration and restarting the host.
While there are undoubtedly problems with Docker, and likely many of the issues you brought up are very real, there are many teams like mine that use it successfully, and painlessly. Docker isn't the tire fire you want to make it out to be.
> What? This makes no sense. Your images will be the same between dev and prod, even if the host running the containers is different - which is really the whole point - if you build and run an image in dev, it should run identically in prod.
I think the author is saying that while this is the point, it's not the reality. As it is right now, things can run absolutely fine in dev and then due to prod running a different operating system, things break.
it is virtually irrelevant what you use to run and operate this sort of cluster. it gets tricky when you pass 100 nodes and even trickier when you get to 1000+ nodes in a non-linear fashion. Docker certainly has issues that are pretty severe when you are in the financial space and not a big deal if you are running a popular blog like medium.com for example.
This shows an astonishing level of ignorance for someone who claims to have done their research.
> First, the main benefit of Docker is to unify dev and production. Having a separate OS in production only for containers totally ruins this point.
What? This makes no sense. Your images will be the same between dev and prod, even if the host running the containers is different - which is really the whole point - if you build and run an image in dev, it should run identically in prod.
> If you like playing with fire, it looks like that’s the OS of choice.
We spent the last year+ running containers on Centos7 with no problems from the OS. Whatever issues we did encounter were either transient bugs with Docker or our own configuration. Perhaps we got super lucky, but we were running 120+ containers on 12 hosts, so I would've expected at least some evidence of significant problems within that timeframe if it were really such a risky setup.
> It’s not possible to build a stable product on a broken core, yet both Pivotal and RedHat are trying.
We've been running OpenShift Origin since March of last year, it's been very stable during that time - the few issues we did encounter were due to our own mistakes, and were usually fixed just by changing some configuration and restarting the host.
While there are undoubtedly problems with Docker, and likely many of the issues you brought up are very real, there are many teams like mine that use it successfully, and painlessly. Docker isn't the tire fire you want to make it out to be.