9 ms·

Licensing. No root daemon.

by krferriter 2y ago

koakuma-chan 2y ago
Docker Engine is Apache 2.0, is this not a good license? Docker has a rootless mode too.
- throwaway81523 2y ago
  When you say "Docker Engine" that suggests other parts of Docker are licensed differently (I haven't looked into it). I'd say you have to compare the whole ecosystem and not just a single component either way.
  - cmiles74 2y ago
    Docker Desktop has a much more restrictive license. Unfortunately, on MacOS and Windows, the "Docker Desktop" product is often referred to as simply "Docker". FWIW, Podman has an open source alternative to Docker Desktop as well.
  - koakuma-chan 2y ago
    I said "Docker Engine" specifically because it is "Docker Engine" that is the counterpart of Podman, and therefore it is the only component that matters. The discussion here is "Docker" vs "Podman," but "Docker Engine" is what we really mean when saying "Docker."
pydry 2y ago
No root daemon got replaced with "but if you want a replacement for docker compose you ought to be using systemd (quadlets)". Meh
- officialchicken 2y ago
  Incorrect, the use of a non-root daemon is essential for isolation and security.
  - pydry 2y ago
    Im fully on board with the idea that root daemons shouldnt be necessary I just dont want systemd to become a dependency for yet again something else it shouldnt be a dependency for.
    - KAMSPioneer 2y ago
      Podman runs on FreeBSD without systemd, so there you go.
      - pydry 2y ago
        yeah, it runs fine without systemd, until you need a docker compose substitute and then you get told to use quadlets (systemd), podman compose (neglected and broken as fuck) or docker compose (with a daemon! also not totally compatible) or even kubernetes...
    - powerhugs 2y ago
      Huh, that's another uninformed take. systemd is at it's core an app for running services, such as containers. You should read up on podman and systemd before making up more arguments.
      - windexh8er 2y ago
        The point is that RedHat went on a tirade for years telling everyone: "Docker bad, root! Podman good, no root! Docker bad, daemon! Podman good, no daemon!". And then here comes Quadlets and the systemd requirements. Irony at its finest! The reality is Podman is good software if you've locked yourself into a corner with Dan Walsh and RHEL. In that case, enjoy. For everyone else the OSS ecosystem that is Docker actually has less licensing overhead and restrictions, in the long run, than dealing with IBM/RedHat. IMO that is.
        KAMSPioneer 2y ago
        But...you don't need systemd or Quadlets to run Podman, it's just convenient. You can also use podman-compose (I personally don't, but a coworker does and it's reasonable). But yeah I already use a distro with systemd (most folks do, I think), so for me, using Podman with systemd doesn't add a root daemon, it reuses an existing one (again, for most Linux distros/users).

Licensing. No root daemon.

koakuma-chan 2y ago

Docker Engine is Apache 2.0, is this not a good license? Docker has a rootless mode too.

throwaway81523 2y ago
When you say "Docker Engine" that suggests other parts of Docker are licensed differently (I haven't looked into it). I'd say you have to compare the whole ecosystem and not just a single component either way.
- cmiles74 2y ago
  Docker Desktop has a much more restrictive license. Unfortunately, on MacOS and Windows, the "Docker Desktop" product is often referred to as simply "Docker". FWIW, Podman has an open source alternative to Docker Desktop as well.
- koakuma-chan 2y ago
  I said "Docker Engine" specifically because it is "Docker Engine" that is the counterpart of Podman, and therefore it is the only component that matters. The discussion here is "Docker" vs "Podman," but "Docker Engine" is what we really mean when saying "Docker."

pydry 2y ago

No root daemon got replaced with "but if you want a replacement for docker compose you ought to be using systemd (quadlets)". Meh

officialchicken 2y ago
Incorrect, the use of a non-root daemon is essential for isolation and security.
- pydry 2y ago
  Im fully on board with the idea that root daemons shouldnt be necessary I just dont want systemd to become a dependency for yet again something else it shouldnt be a dependency for.
  - KAMSPioneer 2y ago
    Podman runs on FreeBSD without systemd, so there you go.
    - pydry 2y ago
      yeah, it runs fine without systemd, until you need a docker compose substitute and then you get told to use quadlets (systemd), podman compose (neglected and broken as fuck) or docker compose (with a daemon! also not totally compatible) or even kubernetes...
  - powerhugs 2y ago
    Huh, that's another uninformed take. systemd is at it's core an app for running services, such as containers. You should read up on podman and systemd before making up more arguments.
    - windexh8er 2y ago
      The point is that RedHat went on a tirade for years telling everyone: "Docker bad, root! Podman good, no root! Docker bad, daemon! Podman good, no daemon!". And then here comes Quadlets and the systemd requirements. Irony at its finest! The reality is Podman is good software if you've locked yourself into a corner with Dan Walsh and RHEL. In that case, enjoy. For everyone else the OSS ecosystem that is Docker actually has less licensing overhead and restrictions, in the long run, than dealing with IBM/RedHat. IMO that is.
      - KAMSPioneer 2y ago
        But...you don't need systemd or Quadlets to run Podman, it's just convenient. You can also use podman-compose (I personally don't, but a coworker does and it's reasonable). But yeah I already use a distro with systemd (most folks do, I think), so for me, using Podman with systemd doesn't add a root daemon, it reuses an existing one (again, for most Linux distros/users).