What does HackerNews think of lmctfy?

Why should there be an assumption of (full) objectivity on an article written by one provider of the 3 technologies that are being compared? Whit that said the article is fairly balanced in presenting some layers of the whole context (mostly the historical one).

Although I would mention Google tried to have their own Docker but that didn't pan out (https://github.com/google/lmctfy) so they switched to Docker and had Kubernetes open-sourced. More historical details would have just made for a longer (albeit more interesting) article I guess.

Now to actual context. While they mention Swarm is not in CNCF and under tight control of Docker Inc. they don't mention that while Mesos is in ASF, Mesosphere hired the majority of the PMC (committers with voting rights). and the rest of the DC/OS is not even in ASF so doesn't even have to abide to the rules of the ASF. At the same time, Mesosphere heavily used the Mesos brand by mixing Mesos-phere and DC/OS into everything Mesos.

So the reason people talk about Mesos, Marathon, DC/OS and Mesosphere as almost synonyms is because they made it so. Marathon used to be a Mesos framework and service scheduler, now it's a DC/OS one for the most part (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13656193)

However, in the process, they managed to alienate a part of the community too, all this while Kubernetes was able to do probably one of the best community jobs in OSS and skyrocketed (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=mesos,kubernetes). That must be a bitter irony if you consider that initially Kubernetes was supposed to be just a Mesos framework...

So yes, Mesos is lower level and with the two phase scheduling it should be more versatile, etc. but that value is highly diminished if you consider the focus is around DC/OS.

I think there are several angles that make this whole context interesting. Perhaps it would be worth a full writing...

Google has plenty of experience with containers already, since they heavily use cgroups and the concept of containers in their production environment for isolation and resource control, never mind the fact that two of their engineers had written much of the initial cgroups code. I talked about this in my "Introduction to Containers on Linux using LXC" screencast [1]. Briefly, Google is in the process of open sourcing their internal container code [2], there was a Wired article that talked about their container orchestration system [3], and finally, there was John Wilkes (Google Cluster Management), who talks about the container management system [4].

Docker adds very interesting filesystem ideas and software for the management of container images. Personally, I think we are on the cusp of a transition from VPS (xen/hvm) to VPS (containers). I also hope that Google throws some of their concepts at the Docker project. Interesting times for this space.

[1] http://sysadmincasts.com/episodes/24-introduction-to-contain...

[2] https://github.com/google/lmctfy

[3] http://www.wired.com/2013/03/google-borg-twitter-mesos/all/

[4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZFMlO98Jkc