How can Docker claim that Rocket does not welcome the notion of portability? Portability and composability are at the center of the Rocket announcement.<p>From the Rocket announcement:<p><pre><code> simple and open specifications for a portable container format...
fill the gap for companies that just want a way to securely and
portably run a container
</code></pre>
From the Docker response:<p><pre><code> these vendors want to create orchestration solution (sic) that are
tailored for their particular infrastructure or offerings, and do
not welcome the notion of portability
</code></pre>
Is this just FUD and sour grapes?
This comes off as overly defensive and entitled, like "we brought you containers and you stab us in the back!?"<p>I don't see why they need to view this as an opportunity to fight back and criticize another app container system, rather than enthusiasm about the continued spread of containers and expressing a desire to cooperate on building open, interoperable standards.
Some context, since the article contains neither explanation nor link about "the Rocket announcement":<p>CoreOS is building a container runtime, Rocket
<a href="https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/" rel="nofollow">https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/</a>
<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8682525" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8682525</a><p>(This appears to be a case where the writer is so immersed in their own world, they forget readers might not be as up to speed as their own colleagues.)
For a post that according to the title is about Rocket, it's interesting that Rocket (and CoreOS) aren't even mentioned until paragraph 12. The previous 11 paragraphs are all "blah blah blah Docker". Seems like Docker is pretty full of themselves.
> These capabilities should not be monolithic. Individuals should be free to use, modify, or not use these services and their higher level APIs.<p>Let's hope they mean it.<p>> While we disagree with some of the arguments and questionable rhetoric and timing of the Rocket announcement, we hope that we can all continue to be guided by what is best for users and developers.<p>Interesting way to end their reply to the announcement of Rocket. The whole post reads like a typical PR response without real arguments. I'm looking forward to their followup post.
"We of docker, advise docker. "<p>Despite their arguments being valid or not, I cannot help but hearing this message over and over in my head.
> While we disagree with some of the arguments and questionable rhetoric and timing of the Rocket announcement, we hope that we can all continue to be guided by what is best for users and developers.<p>What's he talking about regarding the timing of the announcement?
I read the Rocket announcement and then immediately read this response, and find myself very confused at what "mud-slinging" I missed in the Rocket post.
I see a parallel with what Docker did with LXC and the libcontainer debacle. What comes around goes around ...<p>That said, I like this announcement. Docker was focusing on becoming an App store. I like that Rocket brings the focus back to technology.
> While we disagree with some of the arguments and questionable rhetoric and timing of the Rocket announcement<p>Does anyone care to explain what's suspicious about the timing?