An Open Source Story: Open Containers & Open Communities

An Open Source Story: Open Containers & Open Communities

• 1.
  An Open Source Story: OpenContainers and Open Communities
• 2.
  Hello! Phil Estes > Officeof the CTO > IBM Watson & Cloud Platform > Docker Captain > Containerd and Moby Project maintainer 2
• 3.
  @estesp Why me? ▪ Startedcontributing to Docker in August 2014 □ First PR merged Sep 22, 2014 □ Have code in Docker in every release since 1.3.0 (Oct 16, 2014) ▪ Became a core maintainer in March 2015 ▪ Participated in Docker governance discussions since early 2015 ▪ 107 PRs merged into Docker in 3.5 years □ #33 all time contributor (out of 1,750 contributors) ▪ Member of OCI Technical Oversight Board (TOB), Moby Technical Steering Committee (TSC) 3
• 4.
  1. Act 1: Docker Containerscome to the masses. The masses come to containers.
• 5.
  @estesp 2013-2014 Docker explosion ▪Everyone gets involved in the Docker open source project ▪ Red Hat, Google, CoreOS, Microsoft, IBM, Huawei, many others... 5
• 6.
  @estesp 2014-15: The OpenSource Firehose ▪ 130-150 PRs submitted per week ▪ 20+ active maintainers (~30% external) ▪ docker/docker repo passes 1000 contributors ▪ Difficult to process non-trivial PRs (design/UX, API adds/changes, features) □ Some PRs lapse for 6mo, 1yr, or more □ Some PRs rejected after months of discussion, leading to contributor frustration 6
• 7.
  2. Act 2: Tensions Everyoneloves containers! (Too much)
• 8.
  @estesp 2014-15: OSS +Product = Hard. > December 2014: During DockerCon EU Amsterdam CoreOS announces a competing container runtime: rkt > June 2015: During DockerCon SF, the Linux Foundation, Google, Docker, CoreOS, Red Hat, IBM and others announce the Open Container Initiative (OCI) to solve tensions 8 Is Docker really open?
• 9.
  @estesp Red Hat &Docker tensions ▪ Red Hat packaged a modified Docker engine, delivered in RHEL/Project Atomic □ RH publishes list of declined/closed PRs: □ http://www.projectatomic.io/docs/docker_patches ▪ Competition heats up with marketing (e.g. “accept no imitations” t-shirt) ▪ OCI Standardization provides some relief □ RH can produce OCI-specific tools without Docker (cri-o, buildah, skopeo, etc.) 9
• 10.
  @estesp Fork Docker!? Summer 2016- rumors of secret meetings discussing a “Docker fork,” maybe via CNCF? 10
• 11.
  @estesp But why? 11 Let’s MakeContainers Boring - Vincent Batts, Red Hat (meetup talk) An Ode To Boring: Creating Open and Stable Container World - Bob Wise (Medium) The goal of standardising containers is, ultimately, to make them boring. - Jonathan Boulle (Container Camp interview) But many platform builders and operators are looking for “boring infrastructure”: a basic component that provides the robust primitives for running containers on their system, bundled in a stable interface, and nothing else. - Docker Blog, containerd announcement
• 12.
  3. Act 3: Foundations! (Not thekind under your house.)
• 13.
  @estesp Open Container Initiative ▪Create a common runtime and image specification to standardize the “container” concept ▪ Implementation of the runtime spec, runc, created from contributed libcontainer code from Docker 13 • Announced June 20th, 2015 • Charter signed on December 8th, 2015 • 38 current member companies • v1.0 runtime & image spec released June 2017 https://opencontainers.org https://github.com/opencontainers
• 14.
  @estesp CNCF ▪ Formed inSummer 2015 (announced at OSCON) with very similar vendor participation and timeframe to OCI ▪ Took Google donation of Kubernetes as first member project ▪ In March 2017, Docker donates containerd as a member project under the CNCF 14
• 15.
  @estesp Moby Project > April2017: The Moby project announced at DockerCon Austin > Q4 2017 - The BDFL governance is retired, replaced with a technical steering committee (TSC) model 15
• 16.
  @estesp CNCF containerd project >December 2016: A boring core container runtime for everyone, announced by Docker > March 2017: Contributed to CNCF > December 2017: v1.0 release announced Consumable by many upstream projects: Kubernetes, Docker, LinuxKit, BuildKit, Cloud Foundry garden runtime, OpenWhisk FaaS, others. 16
• 17.
  @estesp Summary ▪ Open Source“openness” is a difficult dance to balance with vendor oversight □ Especially under these circumstances: ▫ A very hot industry/ecosystem with many players ▫ Assumptions of VC control due to large funding ▫ Vendor commercial goals can diverge from OSS ▪ Foundations & standards can help mitigate □ Pros/cons to vendor-foundation governance ▪ Open Source is still a powerful tool for cross-vendor collaboration when done well! 17
• 18.
  18 Thanks! @estesp github.com/estesp estesp@gmail.com https://integratedcode.us Slack/IRC: estesp