2 ms·
> "Unique" is a pretty extraordinary claim, considering the author is advocating using pre-existing tools and facilities. [...] just because he didn't use them
by jek0 8y ago
> "Unique" is a pretty extraordinary claim, considering the author is advocating using pre-existing tools and facilities. [...] just because he didn't use them in the Docker way, doesn't make that way unique.
Yes you can make use of the same standard tools as Docker to achieve the same features. There are a multitude of ways you can integrate those (and multiple ways to combine your different options). Docker offers one way, the author describes another way.
The author's way is more unique.
> Docker is genuinely more complex and harder to use than the alternatives.
To make this point, the authors says: "Just read man 7 namespaces. It's well written and makes it easy to grok the concept".
I did, it's super low-level. The audience for this man-page seems to be OS developer, not web developers (or other upper stack level developers).
Any non-system admin can understand the docker documentation, be able to build, distribute and launch container images in less than an hour... Learning to use btrfs or aufs, chroot, ifconfig, init scripts, ..., is easier? Most people never heard of IPC subsystems, UTS, ... and don't need to.
- mmt 8y ago> The author's way is more unique. The author's way is merely different. "Unique" is a superlative. The author's method(s) means more choices. There's an argument to be made that enforcing a single choice is inherently simpler (to which there are counter-arguments), but you didn't make it. > Learning to use btrfs or aufs, chroot, ifconfig, init scripts, ..., is easier? Yes, that is exactly what the author is asserting. Again, this seems disingenuous of you. It's clear that you disagree, but mere disagreement, with only this kind of rhetorical language, lacking any substantial backing, would be a shallow dismissal.