5 ms·
Was there a reason why they didn't take off like docker did?
by itsmefaz 7y ago
Was there a reason why they didn't take off like docker did?
- znpy 7y agoUsability/ergonomic. Docker was/is a lot simpler to grasp. That eases adoption.
- lowdose 7y agoDocker came with the container metaphor.
- rumanator 7y agoIIRC, the main problem was UI/UX. Docker containers in essence are a bit like running isolated Linux processes in a chrooted and cgrouped environment. Chroot exists for decades, and so does cgroups. Yet, Docker came up with a UI and UX which, among other things, let you download and run isolated Linux processes by simply running 'docker run <container name>', thus shoving everything well under the rug and practically eliminating the need to pull any arcane trick to get Linux processes to run in isolation.
- kazen44 7y agorunning processes in isolation has been happening for a long time. (jails for instance, have existed for a very long time and freebsd has been used a lot for hosting services in the past). while i agree docker solved the UI/UX problem, it also introducted a massive security risk, as running unverified binaries in production is very easy for developers. Most shops don't have any private repository in use nor do they have the people (anymore) to build proper processes and systems around running code in production.
- rumanator 7y ago> also introducted a massive security risk, as running unverified binaries in production is very easy for developers. Truth be told, that has nothing to do with Docker and everything to do with how said teams operate.
- monoideism 7y ago> IIRC, the main problem was UI/UX Best container UX I've had so far was with `lxd`, which is Ubuntu's `lxc` container manager (which is why the GP was asking about). I found it more pleasant to work with than Docker, particularly early Docker.