Hacker News Reader

Comment by raesene6 | Hacker News Reader

Not really sure I see the vendor lock-in here. If you use Docker EE sure you're going to be locked in to their solutions to an extent but then that's true of adopting any commercial supported solution that provides layers on top of the base k8s clustering tech (e.g. Openshift).

The API is still k8s and the YAML files are identical, so migration at a technical level off that platform should be easy enough.

I think this move is about Docker maintaining the trajectory in enterprise where people want the management GUIs and extra features but where Kubernetes and particularly Openshift is making progress at the expense of Docker EE.

View on HN

Openshift is open source, Docker EE is not. Big difference.

https://github.com/openshift/origin

Openshift is just like Docker here. both will support Kubernetes in the openshift edition, both charge commercial support..

I'd like to see a price comparison between Docker EE and openshift, because Openshift aint cheap.

Except it isn't, because things in Docker EE aren't open source (case in point, docker datacenter), where as all of openshift is opensource.

Your fallacy is comparing a product that is open core, with a product that is commercial open source.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-OpenShi...

As InTheArena says, both Docker EE and Openshift have Open source cores and then supply commercial support and additions to suppplement them.

It's a pretty common model amongst these companies, and hey they've got to make money somehow :)

Everything in openshift is open source at https://github.com/openshift/origin. The commercial version is long term support, security response and errata, and the stability around that. There's nothing that is withheld from the open source project. It is not open core.

Edit: I forgot, the logo is not open source. So the logo is withheld :)

Its surprising how many people don't realize this!

Huh, how does Openshift compare with Mesos DC/OS? Sounds similar

I've not look too much at Mesos and DC/OS, so could be wrong, but my understanding is that where Openshift is focused on managing containerized workloads using Kubernetes and Docker or CRI-O , Mesos and DC/OS are more widely focused on managing a variety of workloads which could include containers but also VMs etc.

For me, the benefit of Openshift over vanilla Kubernetes is the additional management tooling and the strong default settings for production use.

Openshift has a lot of focus on things like manageability and security which make it well suited to production workloads in enterprises and anecodotally it seems to be taking off quite well in enterprise customers.

Pretty similar. The main difference from the architecture standpoint is that Enterprise DC/OS uses Mesos+Marathon for container orchestration and OpenShift uses K8s. The other functionalities are mostly overlapping.

There is also an OSS version of DC/OS minus some security features. Also, historically Mesos has had better support for running stateful workloads but K8s is catching up too.

Recently, DC/OS announced support for K8s too which is similar to the K8s announcement from Docker.

Disclosure: Apache Mesos committer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com