5 ms·

I like the daemonless architecture a lot, but until there's a quick and painless way to install it on OSX and Windows developer machines, you're going to see ve

by joncp 6y ago

I like the daemonless architecture a lot, but until there's a quick and painless way to install it on OSX and Windows developer machines, you're going to see very limited uptake.

nickysielicki 6y ago
I find it somewhat surprising that we haven't seen more adoption of the redhat docker (lowercase d) replacements after Docker (uppercase d) started pushing some of their monetization efforts. The conclusion that I have to reach is that there are more docker users on Macbooks than I realized.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
GordonS 6y ago
I was just thinking the same thing, and was going to ask if there was anything like Docker Desktop, something to make it simple to use on Windows/MacOS!
- mikey_p 6y ago
  Before there was Docker Desktop on Mac there was Docker Machine. And of course there's a Podman Machine: https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2020/02/12/podman-for-macos-sort-of/ https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2020/02/12/podman-for-mac...
laaman02 6y ago
Maybe it doesn't count but podman works great on WSL2 as far as I can tell.
throwaway894345 6y ago
I actually like the idea of Docker as a better systemd (or rather, the interface is better). No bespoke file format, programmable API, no need to google for the right journalctl switches, and then of course the advantages of containers and images over processes and system packages. I’m not suggesting everything should be a container nor that docker is the ideal implementation, but it certainly points in the right direction.
- Spivak 6y ago
  But systemd has all of those things. Everything in systemd can be orchestrated with dbus. In fact that’s all systemctl really is — a dbus client. And the file format is ini. And shell style environment files if you want. And systemd actually comes with two image launching systems systemd-nspawn and systemd-portable. And then with systemd-machined you can add software that needs virtualization too. The interface to journald is more complicated than it should be but it’s also really powerful — docker logs doesn’t hold a candle to the kind of filtering it can do. Overall systemd is a stupidly powerful and featureful supervisor compared to Docker. Just the dependency management alone should demonstrate that. Then you get mounts, swap, socket activation, more powerful restarting policy and the whole suite of isolation and security features.
  - deckard1 6y ago
    > The interface to journald is more complicated than it should be but it’s also really powerful I thought the point of logging to stdout (i.e. docker logs) is that you just take that output and dump it to another server for processing and filtering. journald/journalctl seem to be a solution a few decades late to the party. For a single user machine or a single app prod environment, I would take a plaintext log any day of the week. At least I can remember how to grep the damn thing. And then when you get to a distributed system, what's the point of journalctl? You would hopefully have all of that logging aggregated together in one place with a much nicer web interface for it all.
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      Exactly this. I just want a stream of logs that I can process with ordinary unix tools without jumping through hoops. I don’t need any extra power for its own sake.
      - Spivak 6y ago
        If that’s all you want there’s really no hoops. journalctl | grep Does what you would expect, it will happily (and by default on most distros) forward to syslog if you want files. The big ease-of-use win for journald is that it captures process stdout. No need to run daemons in the foreground ever.

by joncp 6y ago

I like the daemonless architecture a lot, but until there's a quick and painless way to install it on OSX and Windows developer machines, you're going to see very limited uptake.

nickysielicki 6y ago

I find it somewhat surprising that we haven't seen more adoption of the redhat docker (lowercase d) replacements after Docker (uppercase d) started pushing some of their monetization efforts. The conclusion that I have to reach is that there are more docker users on Macbooks than I realized.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

GordonS 6y ago

I was just thinking the same thing, and was going to ask if there was anything like Docker Desktop, something to make it simple to use on Windows/MacOS!

mikey_p 6y ago
Before there was Docker Desktop on Mac there was Docker Machine. And of course there's a Podman Machine: https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2020/02/12/podman-for-macos-sort-of/ https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2020/02/12/podman-for-mac...

laaman02 6y ago

Maybe it doesn't count but podman works great on WSL2 as far as I can tell.

throwaway894345 6y ago

I actually like the idea of Docker as a better systemd (or rather, the interface is better). No bespoke file format, programmable API, no need to google for the right journalctl switches, and then of course the advantages of containers and images over processes and system packages. I’m not suggesting everything should be a container nor that docker is the ideal implementation, but it certainly points in the right direction.

Spivak 6y ago
But systemd has all of those things. Everything in systemd can be orchestrated with dbus. In fact that’s all systemctl really is — a dbus client. And the file format is ini. And shell style environment files if you want. And systemd actually comes with two image launching systems systemd-nspawn and systemd-portable. And then with systemd-machined you can add software that needs virtualization too. The interface to journald is more complicated than it should be but it’s also really powerful — docker logs doesn’t hold a candle to the kind of filtering it can do. Overall systemd is a stupidly powerful and featureful supervisor compared to Docker. Just the dependency management alone should demonstrate that. Then you get mounts, swap, socket activation, more powerful restarting policy and the whole suite of isolation and security features.
- deckard1 6y ago
  > The interface to journald is more complicated than it should be but it’s also really powerful I thought the point of logging to stdout (i.e. docker logs) is that you just take that output and dump it to another server for processing and filtering. journald/journalctl seem to be a solution a few decades late to the party. For a single user machine or a single app prod environment, I would take a plaintext log any day of the week. At least I can remember how to grep the damn thing. And then when you get to a distributed system, what's the point of journalctl? You would hopefully have all of that logging aggregated together in one place with a much nicer web interface for it all.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    Exactly this. I just want a stream of logs that I can process with ordinary unix tools without jumping through hoops. I don’t need any extra power for its own sake.
    - Spivak 6y ago
      If that’s all you want there’s really no hoops. journalctl | grep Does what you would expect, it will happily (and by default on most distros) forward to syslog if you want files. The big ease-of-use win for journald is that it captures process stdout. No need to run daemons in the foreground ever.