4 ms·

I think that's the right way to do it from the software distributor's side, but most software distributors don't do it like you. So, from a consumer's point of

I think that's the right way to do it from the software distributor's side, but most software distributors don't do it like you. So, from a consumer's point of view, if you want to use their software, then docker is the lesser evil compared to all the others. Notably, it's much better than binaries with dynamic libraries that don't come included in the bundle itself.

candiddevmike 2y ago
As a user, I'd rather use a container then figure out how to run a binary. The onboarding process is typically so much easier, and most enterprise folks already have container infrastructure in place. For big customers, getting a Kubernetes namespace can have significantly less friction than a VM these days.
- forrestthewoods 2y ago
  > then figure out how to run a binary It should never be more complicated than "run the binary". Running programs shouldn't require infrastructure or VMs or Docker images. Deploying a program should be, and can be, as simple as sharing a zip file, extracting, and running. It's not that hard!
forrestthewoods 2y ago
> better than binaries with dynamic libraries that don't come included in the bundle itself. Binaries should always include the dynamic libraries they require. Docker is one way to include them. But you can also just include them the vanilla way. Works great! Very easy and reliable.