7 ms·

its the ability to lower operating cost with less skilled staff. No need to worry about some some other app using port 8080, dont need to ensure your scripts d

by nikau 3y ago

its the ability to lower operating cost with less skilled staff. No need to worry about some some other app using port 8080, dont need to ensure your scripts do a ps and filter out other users stuff, all those kinds of things. Then theres libraries and vulnerability management which is easier to manage where the blast radius is just a single container.

pxc 3y ago
> dont need to ensure your scripts do a ps and filter out other users stuff Your broader point still stands, but I just wanted to say that finding processes to signal (presumably to kill or restart?) via `ps` is insane. Linux has really good process management tools available, whether service management via the init system (systemd, OpenRC, GNU Shepherd, etc.) or some other process management tool (supervisord, daemon tools, runit, etc.). Even beyond that, there's good ol' nohup and pidfiles. All of those things are well established and easy to do. Filtering ps output and using it to decide what to do is indeed painful, but it's painful because it's the wrong approach for Unix, not because Unix multitenancy is more painful than containers. Containers are nice but it sounds like maybe you have some trauma from bad ops mixed into your assessment!
- nikau 3y ago
  It seems you have been fortunate to not deal with "enterprise grade" vendor software with scripts that assume they are the only thing running on the host.
  - pxc 3y ago
    Indeed I have! My current job is at a big corp but so far I've not yet encountered something that heinous. I'm sure that we deal with vendors that bad in some parts of this massive org, though. The quality of tools we have to work with seems to vary a lot from department to department. Why do businesses spend insane amounts of money and go through painfully slow and laborious sales and purchase processes to buy software that is utter garbage? Is it most likely to happen when their needs are highly specialized, so there's just not much competition? I know that enterprise software often has terrible or dated UX, and I understand the reasons for that. But beyond the UI, why is software that costs $5 million more likely to be shoddy and carelessly made than software that costs $50?

by nikau 3y ago

pxc 3y ago

> dont need to ensure your scripts do a ps and filter out other users stuff Your broader point still stands, but I just wanted to say that finding processes to signal (presumably to kill or restart?) via `ps` is insane. Linux has really good process management tools available, whether service management via the init system (systemd, OpenRC, GNU Shepherd, etc.) or some other process management tool (supervisord, daemon tools, runit, etc.). Even beyond that, there's good ol' nohup and pidfiles. All of those things are well established and easy to do. Filtering ps output and using it to decide what to do is indeed painful, but it's painful because it's the wrong approach for Unix, not because Unix multitenancy is more painful than containers. Containers are nice but it sounds like maybe you have some trauma from bad ops mixed into your assessment!

nikau 3y ago
It seems you have been fortunate to not deal with "enterprise grade" vendor software with scripts that assume they are the only thing running on the host.
- pxc 3y ago
  Indeed I have! My current job is at a big corp but so far I've not yet encountered something that heinous. I'm sure that we deal with vendors that bad in some parts of this massive org, though. The quality of tools we have to work with seems to vary a lot from department to department. Why do businesses spend insane amounts of money and go through painfully slow and laborious sales and purchase processes to buy software that is utter garbage? Is it most likely to happen when their needs are highly specialized, so there's just not much competition? I know that enterprise software often has terrible or dated UX, and I understand the reasons for that. But beyond the UI, why is software that costs $5 million more likely to be shoddy and carelessly made than software that costs $50?