2 ms·
Yes, but those are features of Linux that containers use; containers don’t have exclusive use of them. My original point was: > Containers were a great advance
by paulgb 4y ago
Yes, but those are features of Linux that containers use; containers don’t have exclusive use of them. My original point was:
> Containers were a great advance, but much of their complexity falls into the “accidental” category. There’s no fundamental reason that I should need anything except my compiler to produce a universally deployable unit of code.
I stand by that. We might just be arguing semantics about whether that unit of code would be called a “container” or not. I’m leaving open the possibility that it would be (say) a WebAssembly module or static binary.
- samus 4y agoA container can also give your application assurance that the file system looks a certain way. But you are right that you can get pretty far with bundling dependencies and assets and configuring all nontrivial paths with environment variables. However, the choice of containers for Kubernetes is a pretty fundamental one. It simplifies distribution of deployables to a single workflow also for programming languages that don't offer monolithic deployables, to legacy application not originally intended for Kubernetes, or that don't follow the 12 factor app principles.