7 ms·

You're completely skipping the management of the bare-metal hardware itself. Sure, you can buy a stack of whatever commodity hardware you want and run Kubernete

You're completely skipping the management of the bare-metal hardware itself. Sure, you can buy a stack of whatever commodity hardware you want and run Kubernetes on bare-metal. What about updating the firmware on that hardware? What about expanding and the hardware you purchases is longer available? Now you have more disparate hardware that may not even be compatible with the software you're running. Those problems exist at scale and is what Oxide is tackling. It's more than just buying a computer and set it and forget it.

ninkendo 1mo ago
I'm not really criticizing oxide as a product here, I'm sure it's great. I'm criticizing the website for being heavy on "solutions" and light on details. But really, the main detail it's lacking is the operating system it uses, so as I said, I needed to refocus the criticism. But to your point, I don't think I ever said machines don't need a management control plane (I develop a bare metal management control plane for $DAYJOB, I'm fully aware of what it entails!) I'm saying that you don't need to insert a VM layer between the bare metal and containers: Having k8s run on the bare metal OS would be ideal IMO. But since Oxide seems to be Illumos-based, that's basically not possible... At least not for containers as most people know them (ie. with linux-based docker images.) Heck, even if running a VM layer between the OS and the containers, it looks like running your own hypervisor prevents you from (currently) having nested virtualization, which makes certain k8s workloads a lot harder.
- bcantrill 1mo ago
  "Light on details" is not often a criticism that we get, but I think you might be looking in the wrong place: for the kind of detail that you're looking for, you should be heading into our RFDs -- specifically (for the issue you seem to be most interested in), RFD 26.[0][1] [0] https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0026 https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0026 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41515447 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41515447
- sudomateo 29d ago
  I said some of this elsewhere, but the operating system is an implementation detail since we're not selling you bare-metal compute--we're selling you on-premises cloud computing. I think you were looking at this from hardware plus operating system rather than hardware plus a cloud computing control plane. I get what you're saying though, and you're right that certain workloads like Kubernetes on the metal that can take advantage of hardware wouldn't be a good fit for Oxide today. We could decide to change that in the future, but I don't see that as a priority for Oxide given all else we have to build first.
- panick21_ 22d ago
  Its funny because Bryan has spend a good part of the last decades walking around and telling people that they should have VM layer. And this criticism can credibly made against his company. Interestingly he has mentioned that in the podcast and basically said, the industry has standardized on VM and in the kind of environments they run, there just isn't a good way around it. But yeah, a world where Illumos based bare-metal containers had become the standard would be a nicer. But its not where the market is.

ninkendo 1mo ago

I'm not really criticizing oxide as a product here, I'm sure it's great. I'm criticizing the website for being heavy on "solutions" and light on details. But really, the main detail it's lacking is the operating system it uses, so as I said, I needed to refocus the criticism. But to your point, I don't think I ever said machines don't need a management control plane (I develop a bare metal management control plane for $DAYJOB, I'm fully aware of what it entails!) I'm saying that you don't need to insert a VM layer between the bare metal and containers: Having k8s run on the bare metal OS would be ideal IMO. But since Oxide seems to be Illumos-based, that's basically not possible... At least not for containers as most people know them (ie. with linux-based docker images.) Heck, even if running a VM layer between the OS and the containers, it looks like running your own hypervisor prevents you from (currently) having nested virtualization, which makes certain k8s workloads a lot harder.

bcantrill 1mo ago
"Light on details" is not often a criticism that we get, but I think you might be looking in the wrong place: for the kind of detail that you're looking for, you should be heading into our RFDs -- specifically (for the issue you seem to be most interested in), RFD 26.[0][1] [0] https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0026 https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0026 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41515447 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41515447
sudomateo 29d ago
I said some of this elsewhere, but the operating system is an implementation detail since we're not selling you bare-metal compute--we're selling you on-premises cloud computing. I think you were looking at this from hardware plus operating system rather than hardware plus a cloud computing control plane. I get what you're saying though, and you're right that certain workloads like Kubernetes on the metal that can take advantage of hardware wouldn't be a good fit for Oxide today. We could decide to change that in the future, but I don't see that as a priority for Oxide given all else we have to build first.
panick21_ 22d ago
Its funny because Bryan has spend a good part of the last decades walking around and telling people that they should have VM layer. And this criticism can credibly made against his company. Interestingly he has mentioned that in the podcast and basically said, the industry has standardized on VM and in the kind of environments they run, there just isn't a good way around it. But yeah, a world where Illumos based bare-metal containers had become the standard would be a nicer. But its not where the market is.