Hacker News Reader

Comment by vincent_s | Hacker News Reader

Yes, I definitely would pay for that. There already are some docker hosting companies. However, they seem kind of complicated to use (at least more complicated than it has to be):

https://www.dotcloud.com/ (was originally built by Docker creators, then sold)

https://www.tutum.co/ (bought by Docker a few months ago)

https://quay.io/

http://sloppy.io/

View on HN

P.S.: I think tutum comes closest to what you describe. They act as a middle man and support Microsoft Azure, Digital Ocean, Amazon Web Services, Packet and SoftLayer as hosting providers. However, I'm not sure if it's a good thing that they have been bought by Docker at this early stage ..

Not really, what I'm saying is more like DO, atop of secured container.

Also, it is more of a VPS or IaaS, not have to be CaaS or Microservices.

Disclosure: I've been working with Tutum since the initial team.

Tutum was actually a container hosting service at first but we found there were a ton of technical challenges in multi-tenancy with hundreds/thousands of containers and it's hard to build a level of trust that larger IaaS providers have like AWS.

Hosting puts you in direct competition with IaaS providers, while being a middle-man can provide more value-add and you get to work with the other providers to strengthen your solution.

The multenancy challenge comes from the lack of isolation in container. Therefore, people nest containers in VM and put a scheduler atop.

But if there is secured, isolated container, we won't need the VM nor the scheduler, the container becomes the hosting platform, aka EC2, DO.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com