3 ms·
This is already happening. People are using "containers" the way that they used AMIs, which is the way that they used VMs: as a black-box execution environment
by timr 8y ago
This is already happening. People are using "containers" the way that they used AMIs, which is the way that they used VMs: as a black-box execution environment that magically abstracts all problems. Until something breaks. As soon as you have to upgrade or fix anything inside the container, you're back to the same old set of challenges, which remain unsolved.
But this isn't really why people are using containers. Probably the biggest reason that folks are stuck with this complexity (outside of big server farms) is because containers are being foisted upon them by companies who want to sell software, but don't want to solve deployment issues. Why plan for execution in an uncertain environment when you can just require Docker?
- weberc2 8y agoI use Docker for my single server because it (and its ecosystem) offers a straightforward path for: 1. Deployment 2. Distribution (I don't have to build a package for every platform) 3. Supervisory 4. Standard logging 5. Configuration management 6. Infrastructure as code 7. Process isolation (not perfect, but I can get some reasonable protection without managing VMs or figuring out how to roll my own isolation and permissioning) 8. Networking Basically I don't have to be a professional sysadmin but a "mere" engineer (yes, yes, in a perfect world I would have time to learn everything "properly", but for all its faults, Docker lets me build something useful Right Now). EDIT: For downvoters, I'd really appreciate more elaborate feedback.
- Aeolun 8y agoSorry, no idea. Seems like a decent summary of why docker would be interesting to a dev instead of a sysadmin.