5 ms·

Virtualisation is cheap. Docker + Debian - stable, with the official docker ppd - you're able to achieve a compromise of stability (and out of date packages) -

Virtualisation is cheap. Docker + Debian - stable, with the official docker ppd - you're able to achieve a compromise of stability (and out of date packages) - while running fast moving projects that require later build tools than those available in the distribution.

pornel 4y ago
Docker to me is a proof that distro package management has failed. People would rather bundle a snapshot of an entire operating system with every application they use, instead of trying to install a compatible set of packages on the host OS.
- zerowellies 4y ago
  Alpine Linux containers can be as low as 8MB in size. Virtualisation has a cost, that decreases every year. I disagree - many people want an efficient system where the package manager handles it - Arch linux. In my use case - I started running Arch Linux and installing the packages I want - however aarch64 w/ prop Mesa drivers = bad time. too few AUR packages has aarch64 binaries - would end up compiling nearly everything. eventually I snapped trying to build my own PKGBUILD for printer drivers (that worked on my arch/hardware) instead of just using the provided install script that had ubuntu aarch64 support. while a sleek minimalist system, ticking smoothly, is really nice - to get to that "happy place" on many bits of hardware can be tricky. this constantly getting stuck and having side effects across different programs on my system led to me taking the same approach I take deploying in production. just install stock os, get docker, then run docker compose pointing to your persisted config/data.
  - lazyier 4y ago
    Forcing everybody to use the latest versions is as anti-user as forcing them to use versions from 5 years ago. What people want is to develop and run their applications with the least amount of friction possible. That is the purpose of the operating system: make it easier to write and run applications. Anything that gets in the way of that is bad. What containers and other forms of virtualization provide is enhanced ability to deploy and run applications cheaper than without it. Linux kernel and modern networking is incredibly sophisticated and Unix design of the past can't allow people to take full advantage of it in a reasonable manner. This is why they switched to containers and virtual machines. Because, frankly, running one Linux operating per application actually makes more sense than what people were doing before. Package management systems, no matter how sophisticated, can't solve these problems.
    - mistrial9 4y ago
      web developers are in a different situation; it would aid the conversation to mention "web stacks" or not IMO
  - pornel 4y ago
    I'm not saying Docker doesn't work well. But whether you're using a slim OS in Docker or not, you're still choosing not to use your host OS, because your host OS is failing to provide equally stable, reliable and reproducible environment for your applications.
    - zerowellies 4y ago
      the irony is - if you stick to software of the time, you live in GNOME LTS land - it's pretty frictionless and stable. my experience is the bad times start rolling in as soon as you need to compile - sway for example - you need a newer version of meson than is on ubuntu LTS, and there's a tight wayland dependency too. its the shiny new software (often the ones posted on hn...) that end up needing the most up to date build dependencies. i agree - it's a failing of the pkg management and devs. but also - the hardware developers. if you rely on prop blobs - docker is a way to liberate yourself somewhat from this - you dont need to have a well maintained upstream
- andrewallbright 4y ago
  It could just be that as a technology community we collectively are still currently getting our heads around what containerization is really essentially about. Maybe as most of us in the technology herd grok it at a deeper level, it will later become more obvious how tools prior to containerization can achieve the qualities we think we can only get from containers. As a brain collective it may be before that we weren't conceptualizing our systems at an atomic enough level that containers introduced. Containers in service to our isolation mental models may be the true benefit of the trend. Even if the underlying technology dies or falls out of trend, the ideas will surely survive. For my career I have learned to appreciate GNU/unix more by using containers.
  - zerowellies 4y ago
    yes well. docker sits atop the lofty shoulders of cgroups. i don't think containerisation is the only way, it's coercion with flatpak and snaps is fustrating.its a means to an end. a means that has mass adoption and is proven, even if it's not ideal.
- MisterTea 4y ago
  > Docker to me is a proof that distro package management has failed. No. I think the package maintainers did the best they could in the face of an ever rising mountain of dependency.
  - xboxnolifes 4y ago
    ...and failed. Trying your best doesn't mean you can't fail.
usrn 4y ago
Containers are not virtualization. They're fancy chroots.

pornel 4y ago

Docker to me is a proof that distro package management has failed. People would rather bundle a snapshot of an entire operating system with every application they use, instead of trying to install a compatible set of packages on the host OS.

zerowellies 4y ago
Alpine Linux containers can be as low as 8MB in size. Virtualisation has a cost, that decreases every year. I disagree - many people want an efficient system where the package manager handles it - Arch linux. In my use case - I started running Arch Linux and installing the packages I want - however aarch64 w/ prop Mesa drivers = bad time. too few AUR packages has aarch64 binaries - would end up compiling nearly everything. eventually I snapped trying to build my own PKGBUILD for printer drivers (that worked on my arch/hardware) instead of just using the provided install script that had ubuntu aarch64 support. while a sleek minimalist system, ticking smoothly, is really nice - to get to that "happy place" on many bits of hardware can be tricky. this constantly getting stuck and having side effects across different programs on my system led to me taking the same approach I take deploying in production. just install stock os, get docker, then run docker compose pointing to your persisted config/data.
- lazyier 4y ago
  Forcing everybody to use the latest versions is as anti-user as forcing them to use versions from 5 years ago. What people want is to develop and run their applications with the least amount of friction possible. That is the purpose of the operating system: make it easier to write and run applications. Anything that gets in the way of that is bad. What containers and other forms of virtualization provide is enhanced ability to deploy and run applications cheaper than without it. Linux kernel and modern networking is incredibly sophisticated and Unix design of the past can't allow people to take full advantage of it in a reasonable manner. This is why they switched to containers and virtual machines. Because, frankly, running one Linux operating per application actually makes more sense than what people were doing before. Package management systems, no matter how sophisticated, can't solve these problems.
  - mistrial9 4y ago
    web developers are in a different situation; it would aid the conversation to mention "web stacks" or not IMO
- pornel 4y ago
  I'm not saying Docker doesn't work well. But whether you're using a slim OS in Docker or not, you're still choosing not to use your host OS, because your host OS is failing to provide equally stable, reliable and reproducible environment for your applications.
  - zerowellies 4y ago
    the irony is - if you stick to software of the time, you live in GNOME LTS land - it's pretty frictionless and stable. my experience is the bad times start rolling in as soon as you need to compile - sway for example - you need a newer version of meson than is on ubuntu LTS, and there's a tight wayland dependency too. its the shiny new software (often the ones posted on hn...) that end up needing the most up to date build dependencies. i agree - it's a failing of the pkg management and devs. but also - the hardware developers. if you rely on prop blobs - docker is a way to liberate yourself somewhat from this - you dont need to have a well maintained upstream
andrewallbright 4y ago
It could just be that as a technology community we collectively are still currently getting our heads around what containerization is really essentially about. Maybe as most of us in the technology herd grok it at a deeper level, it will later become more obvious how tools prior to containerization can achieve the qualities we think we can only get from containers. As a brain collective it may be before that we weren't conceptualizing our systems at an atomic enough level that containers introduced. Containers in service to our isolation mental models may be the true benefit of the trend. Even if the underlying technology dies or falls out of trend, the ideas will surely survive. For my career I have learned to appreciate GNU/unix more by using containers.
- zerowellies 4y ago
  yes well. docker sits atop the lofty shoulders of cgroups. i don't think containerisation is the only way, it's coercion with flatpak and snaps is fustrating.its a means to an end. a means that has mass adoption and is proven, even if it's not ideal.
MisterTea 4y ago
> Docker to me is a proof that distro package management has failed. No. I think the package maintainers did the best they could in the face of an ever rising mountain of dependency.
- xboxnolifes 4y ago
  ...and failed. Trying your best doesn't mean you can't fail.

usrn 4y ago

Containers are not virtualization. They're fancy chroots.