4 ms·

https://www.google.com/search?q=ModuleNotFoundError%3A+No+module+named+%E2%80%98MySQLdb%E2%80%99 https://www.google.com/search?q=ModuleNotFoundError%3A+No+mo...

by orf 7y ago

https://www.google.com/search?q=ModuleNotFoundError%3A+No+module+named+%E2%80%98MySQLdb%E2%80%99 https://www.google.com/search?q=ModuleNotFoundError%3A+No+mo... In all seriousness he has half a point, but for the wrong reasons. Docker doesn't let you take your "old" languages and put them "in the cloud" over more superior approaches - it's a shipping container. That's it. It's a known quantity that lets you slot your 10,000,000 LOC Java monolith alongside your 25 line Python microservice and orchestrate them with the same tools. That's the advantage. The side effect is, sure, you can take your old, shitty code and run it "in the cloud", and it's nothing "we should get rid of". To put it another way: "Shipping containers protects a transportation method that we should get rid of". Sure, drones could fly every item individually to you from the factory, but while you're fiddling around with that Maersk is shipping 20% of the worlds GDP every year by dealing with what it knows best: how to move containers, not caring about what's in them.

ch_123 7y ago
In an ideal world we would get rid of such applications. In the unideal world where we reside, it is going to be difficult in many large organizations to ‘sell’ k8s to upper management if it can’t run older applications as well as new ones. Refusing to support old and new side by side is going to leave you with the old way of doing things indefinitely.
crdoconnor 7y ago
There are many arguments I can think of for using docker but "standard" is a pretty poor one. Directories, bash scripts and package managers are also arguably "standard" and sufficient to install most software. We should care primarily about alleviating deployment pain - not about argumentum ad popularum. "Shipping container standardisation" is not a metaphor for what docker is, it's marketing. Docker, of course wants to be a "standard" product. Every product wants to be that. In my experience, it's been more like a buggy kludge to deal with applications that have isolation issues with their dependencies and unnecessary overhead for applications that don't. All with a sprinkling of marketing hype.

by orf 7y ago

ch_123 7y ago

In an ideal world we would get rid of such applications. In the unideal world where we reside, it is going to be difficult in many large organizations to ‘sell’ k8s to upper management if it can’t run older applications as well as new ones. Refusing to support old and new side by side is going to leave you with the old way of doing things indefinitely.

crdoconnor 7y ago

There are many arguments I can think of for using docker but "standard" is a pretty poor one. Directories, bash scripts and package managers are also arguably "standard" and sufficient to install most software. We should care primarily about alleviating deployment pain - not about argumentum ad popularum. "Shipping container standardisation" is not a metaphor for what docker is, it's marketing. Docker, of course wants to be a "standard" product. Every product wants to be that. In my experience, it's been more like a buggy kludge to deal with applications that have isolation issues with their dependencies and unnecessary overhead for applications that don't. All with a sprinkling of marketing hype.