5 ms·

Docker is quite closed as well, so I am not sure if it is a good step in the right direction.

kenny_r 8y ago
Could you tell us exactly which part of Docker you think is "quite closed"? Docker (Moby) is licensed under Apache 2.0, and so is containerd, the default runtime.
- GoneToThailand 8y ago
  A license unfortunately doesn’t tell the truth, but their actions. They’re extremely closed.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    A license means that "their actions" don't matter.
  - moosingin3space 8y ago
    What actions?
- lmm 8y ago
  The tight coupling to systemd which refuses to standardise any "internal" interfaces and insists on taking over the entirety of one's system. You can't run Docker if you're not running systemd, you can't run systemd if you're not running udevd and logd and so on, you can't run those if you're not running not just Linux but essentially only the "current" version of Linux, and if you ever implement a compatible replacement for one of those pieces they'll break compatibility with it in the next minor release. If Docker were an open system it would already be running natively (not that ridiculous docker-in-a-vm thing) on Solaris, FreeBSD (which have offered similar functionality for decades), and probably MacOS by now. Instead their maintainers are actively hostile to portability patches as a matter of policy.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >The tight coupling to systemd which refuses to standardise any "internal" interfaces and insists on taking over the entirety of one's system. systemd is also open. Open (as in "open source") != modular (or "inherently portable" for that matter).
    - lmm 8y ago
      Open does include modular; since user freedom is the end goal, open standards are even more important than open source.
  - kbenson 8y ago
    So fork it? What you outline doesn't mean it's a closed system, it means they have different goals than you and don't want to support your use case. The fact that it's open and you can submit contributions, even if they aren't accepted, is proof that it's not a closed system. Make your own fork and use that. And if that's too much work, why would you expect someone else to do it for you for free?
    - lmm 8y ago
      > The fact that it's open and you can submit contributions, even if they aren't accepted, is proof that it's not a closed system. Make your own fork and use that. Open alternatives already exist, I use them. But people build other systems that integrate only with docker, and since docker deliberately refuses to follow any fixed standard, other systems can't be compatible with the docker ecosystem. Am I supposed to fork every codebase in the world?
  - michaelmrose 8y ago
    I think instead of them not being open you mean to communicate that they are assholes who don't work with others? If you are going to be critical be accurate too.
  - digi_owl 8y ago
    Err, no. Docker is not coupled to Systemd. If anything Systemd is competing with Docker via their nspawn sub-system. I could have sworn there has been even a few instances of Systemd cock blocking Docker even though Docker had a clear precedence.
jacksmith21006 8y ago
What do you mean? You can now run Docker fine on ChromeOS 67 and personally am doing it now on the machine I am typing this. But you could even use Docker before all this new stuff by putting in developer, install Crouton but you had to use rkt to launch the Docker containers but worked fine. With ChromeOS 67 no longer necessary.
- agentdrtran 8y ago
  How did you start running docker on 67?

Could you tell us exactly which part of Docker you think is "quite closed"? Docker (Moby) is licensed under Apache 2.0, and so is containerd, the default runtime.

GoneToThailand 8y ago
A license unfortunately doesn’t tell the truth, but their actions. They’re extremely closed.
- coldtea 8y ago
  A license means that "their actions" don't matter.
- moosingin3space 8y ago
  What actions?
lmm 8y ago
The tight coupling to systemd which refuses to standardise any "internal" interfaces and insists on taking over the entirety of one's system. You can't run Docker if you're not running systemd, you can't run systemd if you're not running udevd and logd and so on, you can't run those if you're not running not just Linux but essentially only the "current" version of Linux, and if you ever implement a compatible replacement for one of those pieces they'll break compatibility with it in the next minor release. If Docker were an open system it would already be running natively (not that ridiculous docker-in-a-vm thing) on Solaris, FreeBSD (which have offered similar functionality for decades), and probably MacOS by now. Instead their maintainers are actively hostile to portability patches as a matter of policy.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >The tight coupling to systemd which refuses to standardise any "internal" interfaces and insists on taking over the entirety of one's system. systemd is also open. Open (as in "open source") != modular (or "inherently portable" for that matter).
  - lmm 8y ago
    Open does include modular; since user freedom is the end goal, open standards are even more important than open source.
- kbenson 8y ago
  So fork it? What you outline doesn't mean it's a closed system, it means they have different goals than you and don't want to support your use case. The fact that it's open and you can submit contributions, even if they aren't accepted, is proof that it's not a closed system. Make your own fork and use that. And if that's too much work, why would you expect someone else to do it for you for free?
  - lmm 8y ago
    > The fact that it's open and you can submit contributions, even if they aren't accepted, is proof that it's not a closed system. Make your own fork and use that. Open alternatives already exist, I use them. But people build other systems that integrate only with docker, and since docker deliberately refuses to follow any fixed standard, other systems can't be compatible with the docker ecosystem. Am I supposed to fork every codebase in the world?
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  I think instead of them not being open you mean to communicate that they are assholes who don't work with others? If you are going to be critical be accurate too.
- digi_owl 8y ago
  Err, no. Docker is not coupled to Systemd. If anything Systemd is competing with Docker via their nspawn sub-system. I could have sworn there has been even a few instances of Systemd cock blocking Docker even though Docker had a clear precedence.

jacksmith21006 8y ago

What do you mean? You can now run Docker fine on ChromeOS 67 and personally am doing it now on the machine I am typing this. But you could even use Docker before all this new stuff by putting in developer, install Crouton but you had to use rkt to launch the Docker containers but worked fine. With ChromeOS 67 no longer necessary.

agentdrtran 8y ago
How did you start running docker on 67?