CoreOS rkt / Container Linux (project ended) vs. Docker

It is very well suited for local testing where one knows what is being worked on and knows all the dependencies of the software project. On the other hand, it would be less appropriate in situations where a simple chroot can do the trick without the overhead of running a Go application.

Incentivized

You are going to be able to find the most resources and examples using Docker whenever you are working with a container orchestration software like Kubernetes. There will always some entropy when you run in a container, a containerized application will never be as purely performant as an app running directly on the OS. However, in most scenarios this loss will be negligible to the time saved in deployment, monitoring, etc.

Incentivized

• Running a secure container without messing up with low-level details
• Very clear and straightforward approach to building a container
• A way to go for new projects thinking of containers
• Comprehensive and well-written documentation compatible with UNIX keep it simple way of thinking

Incentivized

• Kubernetes context switching - very handy
• Integrate well and seamless - No complicated setup and or UX
• Ease of updating images and etc - very important

Incentivized

• Market share, it's often very difficult to find new talent who use CoreOS rkt.
• Lack of wow features, CoreOS rkt doesn't necessarily offer any immediate advantages over other container solutions.

Incentivized

• It will be nice to see an admin UI for configuration of images
• Container networking can be simplified
• Data storage/volume management can be simplified

Incentivized

I have been using Docker for more than 3 years and it really simplifies the modern application development and deployment. I like the ability of Docker to improve efficiency, portability and scalability for developers and operations teams. Another reason for giving this rating is because Docker integrates CI/CD pipelines very well

Incentivized

Haven't seen any outages, fatal/unrecoverable errors in my usage so far. Enough said.

Incentivized

Docker Desktop. The CPU high usage is a known issue. Needs fixing. Otherwise, it is great overall. Would not use anything else still.

Incentivized

We evaluated CoreOS rkt and Docker when selecting software solutions for my department. We ended up using CoreOS rkt because of how well it fits with CoreOS and the choice of gRPC for the API. We provide a managed service that runs CoreOS on a bare metal server, CoreOS rkt was a logical choice for compatibility. We also found that developers were having better scusess interacting with gRPC than other container engines REST protocols. It was a close race but eventually there were just enough small benefits to push CoreOS rkt in front of the competition.

Incentivized

We need a solution where initially we can use an OS to trigger our pipeline to be used by terraform and then later in ansible. After doing all work it automatically get exited and we can reclaim the space of our VM. So we created a gitlab pipeline and at the initial stage we defined a docker file which will be our base image and we performed all our activities inside that image to build infrastructure using terraform. Integration we have done in our gitlab pipeline and finally we remove the docker image so that the space can be reclaimed immediately.

It is the only tool in our toolset that has not [had] any issues so far. That is really a mark of reliability, and it's a testimony to how well the product is made, and a tool that does its job well is a tool well worth having. It is the base tool that I would say any organisation must have if they do scalable deployment.

Incentivized

• Developers spend less time configuring and more time coding.
• Less time training developers as CoreOS rkt lets them use whatever hardware and operating system they want.
• Reduced our IT costs, solutions are containerized using CoreOS rkt meaning they can write one solution with many developers in mind.

Incentivized

• With Docker adoption, were able to reduce 40% of the time taken to complete workspace setup
• Provided the environment packaging / configurability capability which enabled resource sharing and interoperability across teams
• Were able to leverage off the shelf images provided by leading product companies which increased reliability and security exponently

Incentivized