3 ms·
Docker is just static linking for millenials
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- milquetoastaf 7y agoWow! Substantial discussion to be had. Not at all a reductive, ignorant take here or anything
- erulabs 7y agoLike Kelsey Hightower said so we’ll at KubeCon this year: yes in 5 years docker might be dead. In 5 years Kubernetes might be dead. But in 5 years, all your code, tarballed it’s environment, packaged with the ports and commands to make it work, absolutely will not. Static linking is still absolutely an option in the land of containers - it’s just called a shared base image instead of a shared linked library. If you’d told me 10 years ago people would flip out when asked to document their application artifacts, I would have probably laughed and agreed, unfortunately :P
- im3w1l 7y agoThe big difference between docker and static linking is that a docker container can: * "Link" against commandline utilities. * "Link" against daemons. * Contain state. * Has (insecure) isolation.
- westurner 7y agoNo, LXC does quite a bit more than static linking. An inability to recognize that likely has nothing to do with generation. Can you launch a process in a chroot, with cgroups? Okay, now upgrade everything it's linked with (without breaking the host/build system) Configure a host-only network for a few processes – running in separate cgroups – without DHCP. Criticize Docker? Rootless builds and containers are essentially impossible. Buildah and podman make rootless builds possible without a socket. Like sysvinit, though, IDK how well centralized logging (and logshipping, and logged crashes and restarts) works without that socket. Given comments like this, it's likely that you've never built a chroot for a different distro. Or launchd a process with cgroups.