Why Docker and CoreOS’ split was predictable
Great post. I completely agree, and was making this same argument to someone yesterday. There are a few important trends and facts:<p>- Containerization allows more tenants-per-server than virtualization<p>- The entire business model of cloud computing is maximizing tenants-per-server<p>- Because containerization has a direct cost benefit to cloud providers, they will adopt it quickly<p>- Quick adoption of containerization will trigger a "new wave" similar to when Linux gained mass adoption<p>- Cloud companies are scrambling to invest in hot containerization rather than build their own<p>- Docker has developer street cred and a solid team<p>- Post-dotcom, post-web2.0, companies invest in open source software now. This is new.<p>- Cloud companies compete with each other<p>- Different cloud companies invested in Docker, CoreOS<p>- Docker, CoreOS are competing<p>My logic is a bit fragmented, but all the necessary facts are there, and the conclusion that logically follows from them is that it makes rational business sense for CoreOS to diverge from Docker. There's billions of dollars at stake in the latest "platform war" (previous wars include desktop, server, mobile) -- the battle for the cloud. Containerization <i>directly reduces costs</i> and the "metric that matters" for cloud hosts, tenants-per-server. Therefore any open source company with a good containerization solution is going to attract a lot of investment. But bigcorp A does not want to rely on strategic direction of bigcorp B. Therefore they diverge their open source offerings.<p>It makes sense from a business perspective, and it's kind of sad from an open source perspective, but also good if you believe in free market economics. The question is, how much do free market economics apply in open source?