4 ms·
> Why do you think it's not a good practice? I didn't say it wasn't. Docker makes sense because everyone uses it. However, I would prefer a Docker alternative
by adgasf 7y ago
> Why do you think it's not a good practice?
I didn't say it wasn't. Docker makes sense because everyone uses it.
However, I would prefer a Docker alternative that is purely local and doesn't require so many permissions.
- my123 7y agopodman is one, and it can even work just fine without root permissions.
- MadWombat 7y agoReally? How can it run a web server container, for example, without root permissions? You need root to listen on port 80.
- takeda 7y agoWell, isn't that a specific case though? From my experience most containerized apps use higher port. In FreeBSD you would be able to also remove such restrictions if needed (not sure if something is also available on Linux) alternatively you could have your app listening on a higher port and use iptables to forward port 80 there.
- MadWombat 7y ago> From my experience most containerized apps use higher port Most public images I see on Docker Hub run on default ports. Sure, a lot of these are configurable, but then you need to reconfigure all the consumer services to use a non-default port. FreeBSD is not an option, unless you are willing to run on your own hardware. As for iptables, does podman provide network isolation where you can define iptable rules per container? I know it wouldn't work with docker.
- my123 7y agoLinux namespaces, and then you forward it to a higher port range on the host. (or you can disable that check too)
- adgasf 7y agoAren't most people running a load-balancer in front nowadays?