3 ms·

I thought the intent of CoreOS was not to use a package manager, but simply be a host to run containers? https://coreos.com/using-coreos/ https://coreos.com/us

by dsexton 11y ago

I thought the intent of CoreOS was not to use a package manager, but simply be a host to run containers? https://coreos.com/using-coreos/ https://coreos.com/using-coreos/

SwellJoe 11y ago
Yes, I suppose that's one way to look at it. But, to quote from that: "Instead of installing packages via yum or apt, CoreOS uses Linux containers to manage your services at a higher level of abstraction. A single service's code and all dependencies are packaged within a container that can be run on one or many CoreOS machines." So, you're now managing "containers" instead of "packages". What's the difference in terms of making them reproduce-able and reliable? Very little (though there are big differences in how you deploy them and how they behave when deployed). You still need tools to manage the complexity of reliably building these containers (a "higher level of abstraction" that contains many more moving parts than a single package, generally speaking). They've built configuration management (etcd), and they use existing tools or custom tools for the "packaging" part of the equation (Docker or rkt). Even though they're calling it a "container", you're still building and deploying software...now only with less mature tools than the old ones we've been using for 20 years. Someone has to build those containers, and someone has to use tools to do so reliably and predictably. I'm saying that NixOS seems to provide better tools (for both configuration management and for packaging) than the current popular solutions. It surprises me that more people haven't embraced it for doing this stuff. I'm just saying I think NixOS would be an ideal candidate for the same spaces where people are using CoreOS and Docker or CoreOS and rkt.
- dsexton 11y ago
  I think Docker, along with an orchestration system (such as Kubernetes) warrants a try, I was hesitant at first myself. It is just a different way of attacking deployments. It has some overlap with configuration management, but does not cover that entire domain. As far as reliably building images, I believe you can use Nix to provision images. I don't see this as NixOS vs Docker, I believe they can be used in conjunction. As far as the maturity, despite its age there is so much momentum behind docker right now. Also, NixOS is also not that old. I totally understand the hesitation, but I think it's worth trying out.
  - SwellJoe 11y ago
    I think maybe I've mis-communicated somewhere along the way. I'm not saying containers are a bad idea; they're a good deployment strategy for many use cases. What I'm saying is that there are a lot of slapped together tools out there trying to provide a declarative/atomic infrastructure that are doing it poorly...but, are quite popular. NixOS seems like an ideal tool for the task; as you note, one could readily build your containers with NixOS (and I think it'd be the ideal choice for that). And, in fact, that's primarily what I was thinking of. We've been working on Docker support in our products lately, so it's on my mind, and the way that so many lessons that have been learned in the past couple decades of systems management are kinda thrown overboard in the Docker (and other containers) community. As above where there's a sort of belief that "containers" makes the problems package management solves irrelevant. Likewise, there's a lot of throwing security out the window; a tremendous level of trust is being given to container builders. I could rant all day about stuff like this, and there's always the risk of turning into Grandpa Simpson. So, I'll stop ranting after a summary: Containers are cool, but a lot of people are making a lot of mistakes in their use of containers. NixOS is cool, and might remedy some of the problems I see in the way people are using containers (while also solving a number of other problems of reliable deployments, not just with containers).

by dsexton 11y ago

I thought the intent of CoreOS was not to use a package manager, but simply be a host to run containers? https://coreos.com/using-coreos/ https://coreos.com/using-coreos/

SwellJoe 11y ago

Yes, I suppose that's one way to look at it. But, to quote from that: "Instead of installing packages via yum or apt, CoreOS uses Linux containers to manage your services at a higher level of abstraction. A single service's code and all dependencies are packaged within a container that can be run on one or many CoreOS machines." So, you're now managing "containers" instead of "packages". What's the difference in terms of making them reproduce-able and reliable? Very little (though there are big differences in how you deploy them and how they behave when deployed). You still need tools to manage the complexity of reliably building these containers (a "higher level of abstraction" that contains many more moving parts than a single package, generally speaking). They've built configuration management (etcd), and they use existing tools or custom tools for the "packaging" part of the equation (Docker or rkt). Even though they're calling it a "container", you're still building and deploying software...now only with less mature tools than the old ones we've been using for 20 years. Someone has to build those containers, and someone has to use tools to do so reliably and predictably. I'm saying that NixOS seems to provide better tools (for both configuration management and for packaging) than the current popular solutions. It surprises me that more people haven't embraced it for doing this stuff. I'm just saying I think NixOS would be an ideal candidate for the same spaces where people are using CoreOS and Docker or CoreOS and rkt.

dsexton 11y ago
I think Docker, along with an orchestration system (such as Kubernetes) warrants a try, I was hesitant at first myself. It is just a different way of attacking deployments. It has some overlap with configuration management, but does not cover that entire domain. As far as reliably building images, I believe you can use Nix to provision images. I don't see this as NixOS vs Docker, I believe they can be used in conjunction. As far as the maturity, despite its age there is so much momentum behind docker right now. Also, NixOS is also not that old. I totally understand the hesitation, but I think it's worth trying out.
- SwellJoe 11y ago
  I think maybe I've mis-communicated somewhere along the way. I'm not saying containers are a bad idea; they're a good deployment strategy for many use cases. What I'm saying is that there are a lot of slapped together tools out there trying to provide a declarative/atomic infrastructure that are doing it poorly...but, are quite popular. NixOS seems like an ideal tool for the task; as you note, one could readily build your containers with NixOS (and I think it'd be the ideal choice for that). And, in fact, that's primarily what I was thinking of. We've been working on Docker support in our products lately, so it's on my mind, and the way that so many lessons that have been learned in the past couple decades of systems management are kinda thrown overboard in the Docker (and other containers) community. As above where there's a sort of belief that "containers" makes the problems package management solves irrelevant. Likewise, there's a lot of throwing security out the window; a tremendous level of trust is being given to container builders. I could rant all day about stuff like this, and there's always the risk of turning into Grandpa Simpson. So, I'll stop ranting after a summary: Containers are cool, but a lot of people are making a lot of mistakes in their use of containers. NixOS is cool, and might remedy some of the problems I see in the way people are using containers (while also solving a number of other problems of reliable deployments, not just with containers).