3 ms·

Why would a technology built on top of cgroups, a feature only available in the linux kernel, be created to "let mac devs do linux things"? In fact, running doc

Why would a technology built on top of cgroups, a feature only available in the linux kernel, be created to "let mac devs do linux things"? In fact, running docker on Mac was painful in the early days with boot2docker.

silisili 5y ago
Just my experience on my team. The Linux guys were already building and running things locally. So the sales pitch so to speak from our team were the Mac guys saying 'hey, now we can build and test locally!', whereas the Linux guys just kinda found it a slight annoyance. Things have certainly changed with the rise of kube, ecr, and the such. But in the time of doing standard deploys into static vms, it didn't make a ton of sense.
- dimitrios1 5y ago
  I encourage you to investigate where docker came from, and the rise of containerization in general. The notion that you have is rather misinformed and anachronistic. Competing against standard deploys onto VMS, especially using proprietary software is exactly why containerization gained a foothold. Whatever this anecdote your team told you about Mac guys, this just has nothing to do with docker's, and containers in general, rise to fame. It wouldn't be until much later when Mac users were starting to rely on tools like Vagrant for development environments where docker was seen as an alternative to that. If your team were real linux guys, they probably would have already known about lxc, as well as all the other technologies that lead up to it: jails, solaris containers, and vserver, so seeing this as "some annoying mac thing" is especially puzzling to me.
  - silisili 5y ago
    You know, I try to be reasonable so, you're right - my initial comment was way too broad and dismissive. I told a personal tale about adoption(not creation), which isn't exactly fair to the creators. It's a slightly different and perhaps jaded view when a perfectly solid workflow is upended, and when asking why get responses like 'consistent OS and dependencies', which our vms already had, and 'we can run it locally', which half of us already did. Admittedly, there is a lot of value in a consistent and repeatable environment specification(vs bespoke everywhere), being able to do so without needing to spin up vms, and yes - running linuxy things on Mac and Win, among other things.

silisili 5y ago

Just my experience on my team. The Linux guys were already building and running things locally. So the sales pitch so to speak from our team were the Mac guys saying 'hey, now we can build and test locally!', whereas the Linux guys just kinda found it a slight annoyance. Things have certainly changed with the rise of kube, ecr, and the such. But in the time of doing standard deploys into static vms, it didn't make a ton of sense.

dimitrios1 5y ago
I encourage you to investigate where docker came from, and the rise of containerization in general. The notion that you have is rather misinformed and anachronistic. Competing against standard deploys onto VMS, especially using proprietary software is exactly why containerization gained a foothold. Whatever this anecdote your team told you about Mac guys, this just has nothing to do with docker's, and containers in general, rise to fame. It wouldn't be until much later when Mac users were starting to rely on tools like Vagrant for development environments where docker was seen as an alternative to that. If your team were real linux guys, they probably would have already known about lxc, as well as all the other technologies that lead up to it: jails, solaris containers, and vserver, so seeing this as "some annoying mac thing" is especially puzzling to me.
- silisili 5y ago
  You know, I try to be reasonable so, you're right - my initial comment was way too broad and dismissive. I told a personal tale about adoption(not creation), which isn't exactly fair to the creators. It's a slightly different and perhaps jaded view when a perfectly solid workflow is upended, and when asking why get responses like 'consistent OS and dependencies', which our vms already had, and 'we can run it locally', which half of us already did. Admittedly, there is a lot of value in a consistent and repeatable environment specification(vs bespoke everywhere), being able to do so without needing to spin up vms, and yes - running linuxy things on Mac and Win, among other things.