Internet Infrastructure for Everyone

just_another_sean sends in a story at Wired about a group of engineers trying to build a new server operating system that will make it easier to deploy a multitude of technologies for people and companies that aren't tech giants. "The project is based on Google’s ChromeOS, the new-age laptop operating system that automatically updates itself every few weeks, but unlike ChromeOS, it can run more than just your personal machine. It can run every web service you ever visit, no matter how big. And it will let the companies that run those services evolve their online operations much more quickly — and cheaply — than they can with traditional server software. 'We’ve borrowed a lot of concepts from the browser world,' Polvi explains, 'and applied them to servers.' You can think of CoreOS as a new substrate for the internet. Web giants such as Google and Amazon and big Wall Street financial outfits, including the NASDAQ stock exchange, have built similar server operating systems for their own use, but with CoreOS — an open source software project — Polvi’s startup is creating something anyone can use. 'We’re building Google’s infrastructure for everyone else,' he says. In doing so, Polvi and his team hope this OS can more rapidly fill the security holes that plague our computer servers, while speeding the evolution of the software applications that run atop them."

Comments

Sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Can anyone decipher exactly what it is he's promising? Another layer in the OSI model that tries to reinvent the Java wheel and run everything natively?

Re:Sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me

[ackthpt]

Sounds something like Usenet back in the 80's, before Spam, interwebs, virii and advertising made a train wreck of it all.

let's call it web 3.0

Re:Sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me

[asmkm22]

It almost sounds like their trying to tie server services into the cloud... probably not actual data storage, but the services and functions themselves. Kind of like how if you go install chrome on a new computer, it can port over all of your settings and stuff, or how if you setup a new android device it will automatically load up your apps and contacts, etc.. In this case, I think the idea is to make it so that the hardware is less important, and easier to replace without having to go through the normal motions of reloading from backups or doing some kind of barebones restore. Instead, you just swap out or install whatever new hardware you need to, and "long in" (or whatever the process may be) to get your new server node online and sync'd with the rest of your network without much hassle.

There's a lot of blanks that need to be filled here, like actual data store. I imagine that would still be done in-house with central storage. The basic idea, as I understand it, is actually really cool.

Re:Sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me

[asmkm22]

Also, for clarification, when I meant tie it to the cloud, I'm talking about the ability for the OS to be kept updated and maintained in the same way as, say, Google Chrome does. Not by simply hosting a bunch of services in some kind of cloud farm. The servers and all the services would probably be installed and maintained on site.

*yawn*

[nurb432]

Sounds like little VMs on a bare bones OS to me. Nothing new here and yet another rehash.

Needs IPV6

[bitflusher]

If you want all devices to run everything you need IPV6. ISPs are lagging badly. Even though it is not the hardest thing in the world. France and Asia are switching. My ISP is running a pre-pilot for over 2 years, it runs fine. They are still not roling it out for the rest of the users (probably corp funding that is lacking).

Re:Needs IPV6

[mars-nl]

I was a part of the internet when it started and was the wild wild west. Everyone had nearly unlimited ip addresses and NOBODY used them for several reasons. First nobody put everything on the internet.

That was then. Now is now. The billion people on Facebook, Twitter, Flickr don't put anything online? Sure, it's all crap, but it sure is not nothing.

It's just Dumb to put workstations on the internet... Sally in accounting does not need a public IP and all it does is make her computer easier to target and attack. Hiding behind that router on a separate private network is far more secure. Plus it is easier to defend a single point of entry than it is to defend a 255.255.0.0 address space from the world.

Bullshit. If in IPv4 your internal network would be 192.168.10.0/24, you can define an IPv6 range for that as well, e.g. 2001:db8:1234:10::/72. And then you put in your firewall:

2001:db8:1234:10::/72 Inbound: DENY ALL

Done. Hard? No. Harder than IPv4? No. Easier? Yes. Sally needs direct connection to Tom in the other branch (for file transfer, video conference, etc):

2001:db8:1234:10::5411/128 Inbound: ALLOW ALL FROM 2001:db8:1234:11::703/128

Good luck telling your IPv4 CGN ISP you need a port forwarded.

Second I have yet to have someone give me a real need for having everything on the internet with a direct address. you have zero need to have your toaster accessible from the internet.

Oh yeah? Sally might need that 30 GB Powerpoint presentation of her coworker in the other branch. Or that 100 MB customer database. Well, you know, this. How much easier would that be with a very simple app that even you could hack together that sends a file from one IP address to the other. Simple and fast, with IPv6. Try it with IPv4.

Re:Needs IPV6

[TCM]

Another one confusing NAT and packet filters.

Plus it is easier to defend a single point of entry than it is to defend a 255.255.0.0 address space from the world.

What the hell does address space size have to do with how easy it is to "defend from the world"? Do you patch a cable for each individual IP address to your border?

NAT+filter or just filter, which one is simpler? All security comes from the filter, not from NAT. OTOH, all problems come from NAT, not the filter. The question is not whether you have a good reason to put your toaster on the net, the question is whether you should cripple yourself _if_ you want to put it on the net.

If you deploy without understanding, you will fail

[gweihir]

There is no way around understanding what you are doing. If you want to have services without that expertise, rent them from a managed service provider. Chances are good they will not mess up as badly as you are certain to do.

Re:Oh look... another slashvertisement...

[Russ1642]

If you're worried about getting old maybe you should look into the Cryonics Institute for a chance at immortality.

Partitioned apps + automagic updates.

[Valdrax]

With CoreOS, the idea is to build an OS that you can instantly replace whenever you like, without breaking the software applications that run on it.

Google has long done this sort of thing on desktops and laptops. The search giant built its web browser, Chrome, so that it can automatically update the thing whenever it likes, and it eventually extended this arrangement to ChromeOS, which revolves around the Chrome browser. If you own a Chromebook, you get a new operating system every six weeks or so â" and all you have to do is reboot your machine.
[...]
Part of the trick is that Polviâ(TM)s team has pared a server operating system down to the bare minimum. The thing doesnâ(TM)t include all the bells and whistles youâ(TM)ll find in other server OSes, including most versions of Linux, and it cleanly separates the OS from the applications that run atop it.

With CoreOS, all applications sit inside âoecontainersâ â" little bubbles of software code that include everything an application needs to run. These containers then latch onto the main OS through the simplest of interfaces. That means you can easily move applications from OS to OS and from machine to machine â" much as you move shipping containers from boat to boat and train to train â" but it also means you can easily update the OS without disturbing the applications. âoeThe way weâ(TM)re able to consistently update the OS â" and be nimble â" is to make sure we have a consistent way of running applications,â Polvi says.

That's what's being promised. Sounds ambitious.

Re:Partitioned apps + automagic updates.

[cusco]

all applications sit inside "containers" - little bubbles of software code that include everything an application needs to run.

So they're going back to the way that apps ran under DOS. I always thought that made sense, and since there isn't really a need to save disk space, CPU or memory any more (at least not like there used to be).

The project home page has better info than TFA

[Morden']

Unlike the article, http://coreos.com/ front page actually summarizes what they are doing. Stripped down Linux kernel only OS that runs your apps in 'containers'.