3 ms·

The docker 0% thing is misleading. There's literally nothing stopping you from building a full OS in a container. I've built containers that you could SSH into

The docker 0% thing is misleading. There's literally nothing stopping you from building a full OS in a container. I've built containers that you could SSH into and never know you were in a container. Docker folks push the single process thing hard but it's not the only way and most people who deal with a lot of containers know that. I'm interested in jails because I have a BSD need, so this is timely but starting with misinformation puts off.

tdurden 7y ago
I think it means there is 0% Docker involved, but I am not sure...claiming to be 100% secure is more suspect to me.
- giancarlostoro 7y ago
  From my archaic (and by no means first hand) understanding of jails they are basically a docker alternative (long) long before Docker. They have been tried and tested probably arent 100% secure but damn near enough to be worthwhile. Jails is the main concept that interested me in BSD. I just dont want to deal with drivers. If I pop in an ISO I want things to work period. So I stick with Linux instead.
  - tachion 7y ago
    What kind of drivers? Pop an iso of what, where? I hardly can think of anything one could do with FreeBSD and Jails that would involve any 'drivers' - mind elaborating a bit?
    - giancarlostoro 7y ago
      I should of stepped back and explained, I'm on about installing the OS itself. If the road of entry is a nogo for me, I wont be able to try jails.
- igetspam 7y ago
  You may be right. Its in the "Jails Contain All The Things!" section so maybe I read it wrong. The 100% security thing makes more sense your way. But the no 12-factor app statement and then Docker 0% is confusing. Not a great layout. Not the fault if jails though.
josteink 7y ago
> There's literally nothing stopping you from building a full OS in a container. In fact LXC/LXD containers in Ubuntu are exactly this by default.
- zaro 7y ago
  As well as systemd-nspawn

tdurden 7y ago

I think it means there is 0% Docker involved, but I am not sure...claiming to be 100% secure is more suspect to me.

giancarlostoro 7y ago
From my archaic (and by no means first hand) understanding of jails they are basically a docker alternative (long) long before Docker. They have been tried and tested probably arent 100% secure but damn near enough to be worthwhile. Jails is the main concept that interested me in BSD. I just dont want to deal with drivers. If I pop in an ISO I want things to work period. So I stick with Linux instead.
- tachion 7y ago
  What kind of drivers? Pop an iso of what, where? I hardly can think of anything one could do with FreeBSD and Jails that would involve any 'drivers' - mind elaborating a bit?
  - giancarlostoro 7y ago
    I should of stepped back and explained, I'm on about installing the OS itself. If the road of entry is a nogo for me, I wont be able to try jails.
igetspam 7y ago
You may be right. Its in the "Jails Contain All The Things!" section so maybe I read it wrong. The 100% security thing makes more sense your way. But the no 12-factor app statement and then Docker 0% is confusing. Not a great layout. Not the fault if jails though.

josteink 7y ago

> There's literally nothing stopping you from building a full OS in a container. In fact LXC/LXD containers in Ubuntu are exactly this by default.

zaro 7y ago
As well as systemd-nspawn