5 ms·

I'd say your choice of OS is very relevant, on the contrary: A big part of that wave (namely LXC and LXD) is a Canonical project. That's what docker used for a

by tribaal 11y ago

I'd say your choice of OS is very relevant, on the contrary: A big part of that wave (namely LXC and LXD) is a Canonical project. That's what docker used for a long time (until, in my humble opinion, they decided they needed to differentiate and un-tie themselves) Source: https://linuxcontainers.org/ https://linuxcontainers.org/ (page footer)

SEJeff 11y ago
They used LXC until they realized it was pretty flaky, yes. Then they realized that all it was is just a thin veneer around linux kernel namespaces and control groups, which they could easily write in golang. So they wrote libcontainer :)
- tribaal 11y ago
  I'm going to ask you for your source here. Not because I don't take your argument at face value, but because I'm interested to know what exactly they consider flaky.
  - SEJeff 11y ago
    Source: the libcontainer release announcement: https://blog.docker.com/2014/03/docker-0-9-introducing-execution-drivers-and-libcontainer/ https://blog.docker.com/2014/03/docker-0-9-introducing-execu... """ Thanks to libcontainer, Docker out of the box can now manipulate namespaces, control groups, capabilities, apparmor profiles, network interfaces and firewalling rules – all in a consistent and predictable way, and without depending on LXC or any other userland package. This drastically reduces the number of moving parts, and insulates Docker from the side-effects introduced across versions and distributions of LXC. In fact, libcontainer delivered such a boost to stability that we decided to make it the default. """
    - tribaal 11y ago
      Thanks, but that's still not saying what was flaky. In fact it doesn't point out any problems with LXC at all except a general hand-wavy statement about stability (which sounds a lot like NIH-justification). I was looking for actual problems - since I've never encountered any with LXC/Docker, I'd be interested.
      - SEJeff 11y ago
        Just relaying what I heard from upstream, sorry but you'd have to ask them to details.
- Alupis 11y ago
  > They used LXC until they realized it was pretty flaky, yes The only arguments I've ever heard regarding this all boiled own to NIH syndrome. Until recently Docker was far more interested in being an open implementation of a closed standard rather than an open (or closed) implementation of an open standard. Docker was/is trying to be the only linux container, and creating their own non-standard container library was just one component of that strategy.

by tribaal 11y ago

SEJeff 11y ago

They used LXC until they realized it was pretty flaky, yes. Then they realized that all it was is just a thin veneer around linux kernel namespaces and control groups, which they could easily write in golang. So they wrote libcontainer :)

tribaal 11y ago
I'm going to ask you for your source here. Not because I don't take your argument at face value, but because I'm interested to know what exactly they consider flaky.
- SEJeff 11y ago
  Source: the libcontainer release announcement: https://blog.docker.com/2014/03/docker-0-9-introducing-execution-drivers-and-libcontainer/ https://blog.docker.com/2014/03/docker-0-9-introducing-execu... """ Thanks to libcontainer, Docker out of the box can now manipulate namespaces, control groups, capabilities, apparmor profiles, network interfaces and firewalling rules – all in a consistent and predictable way, and without depending on LXC or any other userland package. This drastically reduces the number of moving parts, and insulates Docker from the side-effects introduced across versions and distributions of LXC. In fact, libcontainer delivered such a boost to stability that we decided to make it the default. """
  - tribaal 11y ago
    Thanks, but that's still not saying what was flaky. In fact it doesn't point out any problems with LXC at all except a general hand-wavy statement about stability (which sounds a lot like NIH-justification). I was looking for actual problems - since I've never encountered any with LXC/Docker, I'd be interested.
    - SEJeff 11y ago
      Just relaying what I heard from upstream, sorry but you'd have to ask them to details.
Alupis 11y ago
> They used LXC until they realized it was pretty flaky, yes The only arguments I've ever heard regarding this all boiled own to NIH syndrome. Until recently Docker was far more interested in being an open implementation of a closed standard rather than an open (or closed) implementation of an open standard. Docker was/is trying to be the only linux container, and creating their own non-standard container library was just one component of that strategy.