[IanCal]

> Whew. That's kind of what I'm chaffing on. I could learn all of this, but it's a lot harder to casually understand how it all would potentially fit together.

This is part of what the things mentioned in the announcement should help with. There's a clear need for clustering and linking, and so lots of people have built different tools to solve it. That's grand, but it's incredibly confusing coming into it. Particularly since tools vary from production ready to beta to "not actually implemented yet".

The aim here is to still allow people to come up with all kinds of different approaches but to have a set of components that work and are supported by docker. So that you can just get it and it works, and then start swapping bits in and out for the new hotness or some ultra-performant component/etc.

[gtaylor]

To clarify, I'm not asking for a monolithic stack. I like the modularity. It's just getting confusing to those that don't look at this stuff every day. It's more of an ergonomic issue than an approach issue.

There could be some simple solutions to this, mostly centering around education and the promotion of the most popular components. I don't have answers, here, but figured I'd share that it's getting a little confusing in case someone had ideas.

[IanCal]

I think what I said came across wrong, sorry.

I fully agree, I find the whole ecosystem really confusing. Every time I look at it there's some new combination of things, but then one turns out to be alpha/beta ...

What I hope is that the production of these new docker 'blessed' tools will allow me to go to their homepage and see a series of "getting started" tutorials and easily installable tools so I can at least get going.