8 ms·

Docker is mainly a Linux LXC thing. Why would you want to run that on FreeBSD?

by gerbilly 7y ago

pbalau 7y ago
Because I can develop my stuff on a mac, then run it on my FBSD fleet?
- takeda 7y ago
  FreeBSD has incompatible executable files with Mac.
  - pbalau 7y ago
    And? Mac and Linus systems have the same issues, yet my laptop is a mac and most of my docker hosts are linux.
  - MuffinFlavored 7y ago
    He/she is talking about being able to deploy a `Dockerfile` or use `docker-compose` / `docker-machine` on FreeBSD. It's very common in backend development to run a Dockerized version of Redis/Postgres for local testing/development. A lot of developers develop Go/Python/Rust/node.js/etc. on a Mac, then deploy it to nix. They would need to deploy the same Docker containers built locally (or in CI/CD) to BSD, which seems unsupported given the comments.
    - takeda 7y ago
      I see, but I thought the selling point of docker was reproducibility, which was thanks to the image. The Dockerfile is not truly reproducible, and the image once created it is typically created with linux binary. I think docker is a glorified zip file, but if that would help popularize FreeBSD more I wouldn't mind that feature. I guess linux compatibility layer could help here as well.
      - MuffinFlavored 7y ago
        > The Dockerfile is not truly reproducible What makes you say that?
        sigjuice 7y ago
        Try this experiment. Build an image from a non-trivial Dockerfile today. Then make another image from the same Dockerfile in another couple of months and see if it is identical to today's image.
        takeda 7y ago
        Tons of examples where it works on developer's computer, but doesn't in production or someone's elses computer. Dockerfile is not ensuring that build is fully reproducible, it's just list of steps to build the image. There are many issues with it, but biggest offender is due network access, if you're updating your package repo or downloading a file, there's a high chance that the resulting image is different every time. Dockerfile is as reproducible as a bash script. The only thing that's reproducible is the resulting image, but at that point so is a zip file.
weare138 7y ago
I don't follow. Docker and LXC do similar things but they don't share a code base and aren't even compatible with each other.
- kjeetgill 7y ago
  I think the parent is just a little behind on the news. Docker used LXC internally at one point. Easy to miss!

Docker is mainly a Linux LXC thing. Why would you want to run that on FreeBSD?

pbalau 7y ago

Because I can develop my stuff on a mac, then run it on my FBSD fleet?

takeda 7y ago
FreeBSD has incompatible executable files with Mac.
- pbalau 7y ago
  And? Mac and Linus systems have the same issues, yet my laptop is a mac and most of my docker hosts are linux.
- MuffinFlavored 7y ago
  He/she is talking about being able to deploy a `Dockerfile` or use `docker-compose` / `docker-machine` on FreeBSD. It's very common in backend development to run a Dockerized version of Redis/Postgres for local testing/development. A lot of developers develop Go/Python/Rust/node.js/etc. on a Mac, then deploy it to nix. They would need to deploy the same Docker containers built locally (or in CI/CD) to BSD, which seems unsupported given the comments.
  - takeda 7y ago
    I see, but I thought the selling point of docker was reproducibility, which was thanks to the image. The Dockerfile is not truly reproducible, and the image once created it is typically created with linux binary. I think docker is a glorified zip file, but if that would help popularize FreeBSD more I wouldn't mind that feature. I guess linux compatibility layer could help here as well.
    - MuffinFlavored 7y ago
      > The Dockerfile is not truly reproducible What makes you say that?
      - sigjuice 7y ago
        Try this experiment. Build an image from a non-trivial Dockerfile today. Then make another image from the same Dockerfile in another couple of months and see if it is identical to today's image.
      - takeda 7y ago
        Tons of examples where it works on developer's computer, but doesn't in production or someone's elses computer. Dockerfile is not ensuring that build is fully reproducible, it's just list of steps to build the image. There are many issues with it, but biggest offender is due network access, if you're updating your package repo or downloading a file, there's a high chance that the resulting image is different every time. Dockerfile is as reproducible as a bash script. The only thing that's reproducible is the resulting image, but at that point so is a zip file.

weare138 7y ago

I don't follow. Docker and LXC do similar things but they don't share a code base and aren't even compatible with each other.

kjeetgill 7y ago
I think the parent is just a little behind on the news. Docker used LXC internally at one point. Easy to miss!