Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by film42 4138 days ago
I see what Shykes is getting at though. I mean, if you want to use the rocket, then use the rocket. If you want to use docker, then how does adding another runtime help a docker user, when they could simply switch to rocket? I can understand how their might be a "convenience" factor, but if you're already actively deploying with docker images, then why bother with a separate image type?

Don't get me wrong, I think it's great the coreos guys are trying to make a bridge between the two projects, but so far, I don't see a need for this.
1 comments
bjt 4138 days ago
Rocket != App Container. This PR is about the latter. There are already non-Rocket implementations of the App Container spec.

If I were a Docker user, and found some awesome app that only came packaged in App Container format, it'd be very valuable to have this compatibility.

link
wmf 4137 days ago
Are there any such apps in reality? Will there ever be?
link
eropple 4137 days ago
I'd like to use Rocket personally (I currently use Docker--while I think CoreOS's "containers everywhere" concept is a little misguided, I don't believe there's a good reason to have a permanent daemon, and if I need one I have Mesos) but make things I do easily available to Docker users.

(Docker's beefs here feel more like a company defending their turf than an open-source project, and that troubles me.)

link