|
|
|
|
|
|
by social42
4081 days ago
|
|
|
From a quick review, this looks more like RedHat Atomic than CoreOS.
CoreOS uses an A/B partition swap for atomic updates while the vmware OS uses RPM (god knows why).
Also, this seems to be huge compared to the minimal (20MB) option of just using RancherOS.
IF I can use CoreOS and get ETCD, Fleet and both Docker and App containers, why would I use something from VMware ?
Does anyone see any value in using this thing ?,
The entire point o using something like CoreOS or Red Hat atomic with Docker is to stop paying VMware thousands of dollars for each server. why would I use a VMware OS on a VMware hypervisor when I can just use Docker on CoreOS on physical HW and get better performance and more flexibility for free ?
And the entire security thing seems like noise. the real security issue is what running inside the VM and not the cross VM security. containers can be made more secure and more manageable than vmware, simply because they can be automated better. |
|
|
No, it isn't.
Containers (and app containers) are not competitors to, replacements for, or equivalent to traditional virt. While there's some overlap in cases where there's deployment from golden templates or glance images or AMIs or whatever just to get isolated apps, traditional virtualization and containers are complementary technologies.