[obstinate]

My 2c, not speaking as a Google rep but as myself, is that if you have a problem only a single actor needs to solve, you're going to end up with software, not a standard. To get a standard, you have to have a situation where the value of cooperation is higher than the cost.

There are plenty of people now who need to solve the container problem, but Googlers been working on this shit for years, before it was really on anyone else's horizon. Google employees incepted the cgroup feature way back in 2006, to solve problems that were already being felt acutely at that time within Google. Folks have been working on this stuff a long time before it mattered to anyone else, and that's why what's coming out is software rather than standards. There is no way a big company is going to delay solutions to an urgent strategic problem in order to be part of a democratic process for the sake of a few people's ideals. Maybe if they'd seen it coming five or ten years in advance, to give enough time for the standardization process to occur, but Google was far too small and the future far too uncertain in 2001 to predict what might be needed in 2006.

[sitkack]

Almost every problem that containers solved, was solved with EclipseBSD http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.25.8... way back in 1998

[menage]

Yes, the concept of resource control wasn't new. Getting it from a research project to the form where it was production-ready and supported for inclusion in the mainline tree of Google's kernel of choice took a bit longer.

[sitkack]

I used EclipseBSD, it was production ready. The community wasn't receptive at the time for getting it into the mainline FreeBSD tree.

For this I applaud Google for making it in, even when the masses don't see the point.