4 ms·

By that logic, we'll need to ship bare metal, to avoid differences in processors. You've gone from being exposed to OS and kernel differences to being exposed

By that logic, we'll need to ship bare metal, to avoid differences in processors. You've gone from being exposed to OS and kernel differences to being exposed only to kernel differences. For most apps, that's acceptable. Others will need to ship VMs. Some will even need to ship bare metal. It's a tool, not a dogma.

lmm 3y ago
What "OS differences" are you exposed to if you're shipping a static binary? > It's a tool, not a dogma. The idea that containers are the only or right way to do service orchestration is absolutely dogma, enforced by kubernetes and friends.
- maxbond 3y ago
  > What "OS differences" are you exposed to if you're shipping a static binary? I dunno, probably stuff like ulimits and selinux rules that you don't think about until it burns you. Not to mention whatever idiosyncratic configuration your customer might perform. > [It's] absolutely dogma, enforced by kubernetes and friends. The dogmatic people are wrong to be dogmatic, but in the context of this particular conversation, I would like to point out - meaning no disrespect - that it is you who is advocating the more maximalist and less pragmatic view.
  - lmm 3y ago
    > The dogmatic people are wrong to be dogmatic, but in the context of this particular conversation, I would like to point out - meaning no disrespect - that it is you who is advocating the more maximalist and less pragmatic view. How so? The thread started with talking about having a statically linked binary (not a specific one with special requirements, but a generic one), and described putting it in a container with a config to expose some ports from it. That seems very much like a dogmatic everything-must-be-a-container position. I'm not arguing for never using containers, I'm arguing for using them where they make sense and not using them where they don't.
    - maxbond 3y ago
      From my perspective, what they said (across several comments) was, "I like this workflow, it has some advantages, some of my customers want containers, and in our case it doesn't add much more complexity," which I took to be a mix between a pragmatic and aesthetic position, and in the comment I responded to you said, "it didn't solve all of the problems we can identify, so why bother?" I took that to be a maximalist position. If I'm misreading you, then I apologize.

lmm 3y ago

What "OS differences" are you exposed to if you're shipping a static binary? > It's a tool, not a dogma. The idea that containers are the only or right way to do service orchestration is absolutely dogma, enforced by kubernetes and friends.

maxbond 3y ago
> What "OS differences" are you exposed to if you're shipping a static binary? I dunno, probably stuff like ulimits and selinux rules that you don't think about until it burns you. Not to mention whatever idiosyncratic configuration your customer might perform. > [It's] absolutely dogma, enforced by kubernetes and friends. The dogmatic people are wrong to be dogmatic, but in the context of this particular conversation, I would like to point out - meaning no disrespect - that it is you who is advocating the more maximalist and less pragmatic view.
- lmm 3y ago
  > The dogmatic people are wrong to be dogmatic, but in the context of this particular conversation, I would like to point out - meaning no disrespect - that it is you who is advocating the more maximalist and less pragmatic view. How so? The thread started with talking about having a statically linked binary (not a specific one with special requirements, but a generic one), and described putting it in a container with a config to expose some ports from it. That seems very much like a dogmatic everything-must-be-a-container position. I'm not arguing for never using containers, I'm arguing for using them where they make sense and not using them where they don't.
  - maxbond 3y ago
    From my perspective, what they said (across several comments) was, "I like this workflow, it has some advantages, some of my customers want containers, and in our case it doesn't add much more complexity," which I took to be a mix between a pragmatic and aesthetic position, and in the comment I responded to you said, "it didn't solve all of the problems we can identify, so why bother?" I took that to be a maximalist position. If I'm misreading you, then I apologize.