3 ms·

I think these points aren't really fair, since Alpine predates a lot of the work that went into making the alternatives possible. Alpine predates Distroless by

I think these points aren't really fair, since Alpine predates a lot of the work that went into making the alternatives possible. Alpine predates Distroless by over a decade, for example. As for DNS, it's extremely unfair to blame musl for properly implementing the POSIX standards for name resolution. It's not Alpine's fault that so many people wrote software which explicitly depended on specific glibc quirks. If anything, it's a good lesson on the dangers of monocultures, and how even FOSS software is at risk.

zzyzxd 5y ago
I agree with you that it is not Alpine's fault for not being as good as today's Distroless 10 years ago. In fact it is still my favorite tool for several use cases (e.g., injecting a sidecar container for adhoc debugging). What I was trying to say, was that many people choose it for wrong reasons without fully understanding the implications. This included us. It was a nightmare to me because at that time I didn't know it has different behavior in DNS resolution. And our developers expected their code, which ran fine on their workstations and in CI (Ubuntu/Debian environments), to behavior the same when running in an alpine container in production.