Your sarcasm is tedious. If a SAN cannot support a generic Linux kernel, then it's the fault of the vendor for not allocating enough dev hours to the Linux kernel, and their product should not be chosen for a Linux environment.
I'm not sure how else to respond to "let's reinvent a complete Linux distribution because we've written a 20 line auto-updater".
This would have made sense to me a decade ago, but back then I just wouldn't have understood the amount of work involved. You simply cannot produce a fully generalized container OS without producing a fully generalized OS.
That aside, I actually like the central idea of a better approach to managing/updating a large group of host machines. I just don't think it warrants yet another bikeshedded support/security/certifiability nightmare (and lets face it, this is bikeshedding, there's absolutely no value in the core claim of "it's just Linux", but it gives unfettered license to reinvent the same old wheels all over yet again).
Just wanted to add something to this thread, which has not been mentioned yet. Sure, most (if not all) SANs are supported vie generic linux kernel drivers for HBAs, something like a QLogic card, or an exported iSCSI LUN. The issue is that you spent tons of money on the SAN and a truck load of money on hardware and software to hook up to that SAN. So you want to have a vender supported OS to go along with these items. If you have performance issues or stability issues, the first things a vender will ask is, what OS are you running, so they can direct you to the correct support group. The support group will want to debug the issue, so you have to generally run something like RHEL or Windows to get support. This might only be a mega corp issue though, since most startups don't have Oracle/Sybase, fiber channel SANs, etc. To sum this up, in the mega corp world, if you are not running a vender supported OS, you likely cannot get support for your device.
This would have made sense to me a decade ago, but back then I just wouldn't have understood the amount of work involved. You simply cannot produce a fully generalized container OS without producing a fully generalized OS.
That aside, I actually like the central idea of a better approach to managing/updating a large group of host machines. I just don't think it warrants yet another bikeshedded support/security/certifiability nightmare (and lets face it, this is bikeshedding, there's absolutely no value in the core claim of "it's just Linux", but it gives unfettered license to reinvent the same old wheels all over yet again).