[atomic-devel] Kubernetes vs. Origin for upstream

[Josh Berkus <jberkus redhat com>]

Folks:

We started this discussion at the last Atomic General meeting, but
didn't resolve it.  You can find the actual discussion here:
http://etherpad.osuosl.org/atomic-community-meeting

The Problem
------------

Currently we kind of promote Kubernetes as our main orchestrator for
upstream Atomic (Fedora Atomic and Centos Atomic).  However, we also
promote upstream Atomic as a plaform for Origin.  There are two problems
with our current approach:

1. we don't realistically have the resources to package, document, and
promote both upstream Kubernetes and Origin on upstream Atomic.

2. not having a default option with clear & complete documentation
confuses users and doesn't present them with a complete system.

As a result, we need to decide which platform is the one we promote
first, and ensure has a complete and up-to-date toolchain.

Kubernetes First
----------------

Advantages:
* more upstream/cutting edge stuff
* better able to connect with, promote through, Kubernetes community and
developers
* kubernetes is much better known than OpenShift
* FLIBS, CP containers mostly work on Fedora

Disadvantages:
* most Red Hat staff work with OpenShift
* could not count on help from downstream (RHEL Atomic)
* doesn't integrate with some of our other projects (e.g. gluster storage)


Origin First
------------

Advantages:
* nice GUI
* better app developer experience
* better documentation for administration
* able to combine work with downstream folks

Disadvantages:
* lose most of Kubernetes developer/user community
* installation on Fedora is problematic and poorly maintained
* Atomic not seen as next-gen platform
* would need to refactor FLIBS, CP to have Origin-worthy containers

==================

So, thoughts?  And more discussion on Monday.


-- 
--
Josh Berkus
Project Atomic
Red Hat OSAS