@SnakeDoc thanks but I believe in standardization by rough consensus and working code, which is exactly what Docker is and exactly what your suggestion is not. To my knowledge your so-called "standard" has existed for all of 3 days and nobody uses it, at all. All I see is a bunch of hype in the press. Meanwhile Docker's image format and runtime (which are entirely open-source) are adopted by Google, Amazon, Microsoft, IBM, HP, Dell, Red Hat, Canonical, and the next 100 IT vendors in that list. Containers in the Docker format have been downloaded over 50M times on the public Docker registry alone - and that's without counting the multiple alternative implementations of the registry. In fact even CoreOS, the company trying to push your so-called "standard", runs an alternate implementation of the registry. All this is entirely open-source, has hundreds of contributors from all over the world, operates under a governance structure which has been maturing for 21 months. No other container format or runtime specification comes even close to being 10x less adopted than Docker. Do you know how many complaints I received, since Docker was created, that I didn't "comply" with this or that self-proclaimed standard? Dozens. So please forgive me if I don't jump to break the experience of every single Docker user to comply with your forceful request.

But here's a suggestion for you. If you were to complain that Docker's image format and runtime specification, as massively adopted as it is, is not appropriately documented, and it could be made easier to produce alternate implementations - then I would completely agree with you. In response, I would encourage the project maintainers to improve the specs documentation based on your suggestions. I would also encourage you to join the effort, and offer my help in the process. With a week's worth of efforts we could produce a pretty decent result, I think. If the coreos guys had ever actually suggested this, I would have gladly offered my help too, and the result would have been a standard with good documentation and solid adoption from day 1. But they never did, because as competing commercial vendors their interest is to weaken and fragment the Docker standard, not contribute to it. As vendors they don't want a world of fragmented linux distros which all run Docker, the standard container runtime. They want a world of fragmented container runtimes which all run on CoreOS, the standard linux distro. From that point of view what they did makes sense, it's in the interest of the company - unless the community starts calling out their BS, in which case things will start going downhill for them real fast.

So, in summary, you're suggesting that I break compatibility with an existing format which is the de facto standard, in favor of a 3-day old unfinished spec, with no working implementation, no real-world usage, a controversial background, and sponsored by a small venture-backed company with questionable motives. In my place, what would you say?

Docker is not compatible with App Container Image (ACI) Specification #9538

Description

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions