3 ms·
I think that's pretty fair. But I still think that using docker is probably better than having the user do that manually. In a more ideal world, the dependency,
by dikaiosune 11y ago
I think that's pretty fair. But I still think that using docker is probably better than having the user do that manually. In a more ideal world, the dependency, version and configuration management would be better, but using something to wrap around those defects and get something shipped isn't inherently bad.
- LoSboccacc 11y agospeaking of the ideal world one should be able to start any app, point it to any existing database, possibly a folder for storage and be done with it :D
- csirac2 11y ago> But I still think that using docker is probably better than having the user do that manually When it comes to deploying, supporting and securing complex web application software, it is very rare that an out-of-the-box reference image from the project or vendor will have much relevance to your own environment's security and configuration standards. Unless you're paying for support, and the vendor insists you'll have to suck it up and accept whatever madness their support agreement entails. I'm all for convenient docker images, it just frustrates me to see the total and utter lack of imagination demonstrated by some projects that can't imagine their users ever locking down their database access, or running with SELinux, or separately patching the software/service components they depend on, etc. And again, I don't expect the reference docker image for a given project to allow all of that flexibility and configurability, it's more the fact that these possibilities seem to be actively sabotaged with reckless abandon.