My understanding is that Docker's lack of an open specification was advertised as a primary motivation for rocket. So it seemed relevant to point out efforts by Docker to provide such a specification.
The reason the specification document isn't moving very fast is simply that it's stable and already deployed at large scale, via Docker's implementation.
> The reason the specification document isn't moving very fast is simply that it's stable
Say's who? To my knowledge, nobody has attempted to build a container platform using the docker spec. For all anyone knows, there's large gaping logic holes needing to be filled. It's simply untested and unproven.
> and already deployed at large scale, via Docker's implementation.
I think you mean to say "Docker is deployed", because again, nobody has tried to implement the docker spec as-of yet.
The docker team spent so long actively avoiding introducing any sort of standardized container specification out of fear someone would come along and eat docker's lunch, that it's hard to believe miraculously overnight you were able to develop a rock-solid specification that clearly addresses all scenarios and is extensible for any 3rd party to implement cleanly.
The docker spec technically has zero implementations, since it was only created (overnight) as an afterthought after your "implementation" was already completed. If anything, the docker spec is an (untested) implementation of docker.
As-of today, the App Container Specification has 3 times more implementations than the docker spec, has far greater adoption, has been refined more significantly over multiple iterations, and has accepted far more community input into it's development.
Let's be genuine here shykes. Your purpose in this thread is to get people talking about docker and cast some shade on the CoreOS team. The very thing you got so upset about when they first announced Rocket and the App Container Specification.
I'm not sure what to reply in the face of so much bile. Hacker News used to be the home of people who built cool stuff and wanted to show it to each other. Now it's the home of people like you. Docker and CoreOS might be competitors, and we might disagree on many things (ethics in particular), but at least we're both building things and sharing them with others. That's our contribution to this community. What's yours?
I have no foot in either game here (not sure about the parent commenter to this response), so hopefully you'll take this as a suggestion and not an attack... You are being part of the problem here. HN can only maintain the kind of relationship with commenters and posters that you talk about if as someone in the tech industry, you don't attack your competitors. Doing so brings you to the same standing as the kinds of people commenting that you say are ruining the site.
I've seen you post several times all in regards to this CoreOS stuff and NONE of it has been constructive. I think you need to take a step back and understand that HN is a public facing site and that the things you say here have a very real impact on how people view you and your product. Essentially you are harming your company by posting things like this.
Take CoreOS going their separate way as a teachable moment rather than an attack on you (even if behind the scenes it was?) and learn from it. Move on and build a great product by seeing your weak points from your competitors and learning, not by posting bile that you so willingly claim against others. If what you are building is as amazing as you want other people to believe; show them through your actions and by building an amazing piece of software. There's plenty of room for competition in a quickly emerging market. Essentially, if you can't say anything good then you are only harming yourself.
The reason the specification document isn't moving very fast is simply that it's stable and already deployed at large scale, via Docker's implementation.