4 ms·

Docker is a case where "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts". Yes, LXC and cgroups and aufs and overlayfs and whatever else do a lot of the heavy lif

Docker is a case where "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts". Yes, LXC and cgroups and aufs and overlayfs and whatever else do a lot of the heavy lifting, but Docker glued it all together in a way that was approachable by any developer, not just Linux geeks. I remember briefly looking into LXC ~6 years ago and being totally lost. Then Docker came along with a simple command line interface and growing repository of images. If you want to be popular among developers, the "hello world" developer experience should be extremely simple. See: Stripe, Twilio, Docker, GitHub, etc. That said, I do think it's too bad that the Docker client/daemon are the lowest-level building block most people are interacting with. It doesn't seem to follow the Unix philosophy of doing one thing well.

luca_ing 10y ago
> but Docker glued it all together in a way that was approachable by any developer, not just Linux geeks. > I remember briefly looking into LXC ~6 years ago and being totally lost. Then Docker came along with a simple command line interface and growing repository of images. I'm not trying to discount your experience in any way, but, remarkably, my impression of Docker was exactly the opposite. I personally find LXC to be very plain, simple and easy to understand, whereas docker seems intimidatingly opaque and confusing. But then again, I am a Linux geek :-)
eeZah7Ux 10y ago
> LXC and cgroups and aufs and overlayfs and whatever else do a lot of the heavy lifting, but Docker glued it all together For being just glue, Docker has an unjustifiably large code base, it's quite opaque and a lot of stuff to learn if you want to go beyond "hello world" If a bash script can do the same (admittedly, using btrfs) using 100 lines of code something is wrong^W hyped up. https://github.com/p8952/bocker https://github.com/p8952/bocker

luca_ing 10y ago

> but Docker glued it all together in a way that was approachable by any developer, not just Linux geeks. > I remember briefly looking into LXC ~6 years ago and being totally lost. Then Docker came along with a simple command line interface and growing repository of images. I'm not trying to discount your experience in any way, but, remarkably, my impression of Docker was exactly the opposite. I personally find LXC to be very plain, simple and easy to understand, whereas docker seems intimidatingly opaque and confusing. But then again, I am a Linux geek :-)

eeZah7Ux 10y ago

> LXC and cgroups and aufs and overlayfs and whatever else do a lot of the heavy lifting, but Docker glued it all together For being just glue, Docker has an unjustifiably large code base, it's quite opaque and a lot of stuff to learn if you want to go beyond "hello world" If a bash script can do the same (admittedly, using btrfs) using 100 lines of code something is wrong^W hyped up. https://github.com/p8952/bocker https://github.com/p8952/bocker