5 ms·

That person seems to be confused. Installing a single, statically linked binary is clearly simpler than managing a container?!

hu3 1y ago
From the article, the goal was not to simplify, but rather to modernize: > So instead, I'd like to switch to deploying my website with containers (be it Docker, Kubernetes, or otherwise), matching the vast majority of software deployed any time in the last decade. Containers offer many benefits. To name some: process isolation, increased security, standardized logging and mature horizontal scalability.
- adastra22 1y ago
  So put the binary in the container. Why does it have to be compiled within the container?
  - hu3 1y ago
    That is what they are doing. It's a 2 stage Dockerfile. First stage compiles the code. This is good for isolation and reproducibility. Second stage is a lightweight container to run the compiled binary. Why is the author being attacked (by multiple comments) for not making things simpler when that was not claimed that as the goal. They are modernizing it. Containers are good practice for CI/CD anyway.
    - MobiusHorizons 1y ago
      That’s a reasonable deployment strategy, but a pretty terrible local development strategy
      - taberiand 1y ago
        Devcontainers are a good compromise though - you can develop within a context that can be very nearly identical to production; with a bit of finagling you could even use the same dockerfile for the devcontainer, and the build image and the deployed image
    - AndrewDucker 1y ago
      I'm not sure why "complicate things unnecessarily" is considered more modern. Don't do what you don't need to do.
      - hu3 1y ago
        You realize the author is compiling a Rust webserver for a static website right? They are already long past the point of "complicate things unnecessarily". A simple Dockerfile pales in comparison.
    - adastra22 1y ago
      Because he spends a good deal of the intro complaining that this makes his dev practice slow. So don’t do it! It has nothing to do with docker but rather the fact he is wiping the cache on every triggered build.
- dwattttt 1y ago
  Mightily resisting the urge to be flippant, but all of those benefits were achieved before Docker. Docker is a (the, in some areas) modern way to do it, but far from the only way.
- a3w 1y ago
  Increased security compared to bare hardware, lower than VMs. Also, lower than Jails and RKT (Rocket) which seems to be dead.
- eeZah7Ux 1y ago
  > process isolation, increased security no, that's sandboxing.
jerf 1y ago
Also strikes me as not fully understanding what exactly docker is doing. In reference to building everything in a docker image: "Unfortunately, this will rebuild everything from scratch whenever there's any change." In this situation, with only one person as the builder, with no need for CI or CD or whatever, there's nothing wrong with building locally with all the local conveniences and just slurping the result into a docker container. Double-check any settings that may accidentally add paths if the paths have anything that would bother you. (In my case it would merely reveal that, yes, someone with my username built it and they have a "src" directory... you can tell how worried I am about both those tidbits by the fact I just posted them publicly.) It's good for CI/CD in a professional setting to ensure that you can build a project from a hard drive, a magnetic needle, and a monkey trained to scratch a minimal kernel on to it, and boot strap from there, but personal projects don't need that.
- scuff3d 1y ago
  Thank you! I got a couple minutes in and was confused as hell. There is no reason to do the builds in the container. Even at work, I have a few projects where we had to build a Java uber jar (all the dependencies bundled into one big far) and when we need it containerized we just copy the jar in. I honestly don't see much reason to do builds in the container unless there is some limitation in my CICD pipeline where I don't have access to necessary build tools.
  - mike_hearn 1y ago
    It's pretty clear that this whole project was god-tier level procrastination so I wouldn't worry too much about the details. The original stated problem could have been solved with a 5-line shell script.
    - scuff3d 1y ago
      Not strictly related, but I got to the parts about using a dependency to speed up builds in the container, and that his website has "hundreds" of Rust dependencies, and I was reminded why I get so annoyed with Rust. It's a great language, but the practice of just duct taping a bunch of dependencies together drives me nuts.
vorgol 1y ago
Exactly. I immediately thought of the grug brain dev when I read that.

hu3 1y ago

From the article, the goal was not to simplify, but rather to modernize: > So instead, I'd like to switch to deploying my website with containers (be it Docker, Kubernetes, or otherwise), matching the vast majority of software deployed any time in the last decade. Containers offer many benefits. To name some: process isolation, increased security, standardized logging and mature horizontal scalability.

adastra22 1y ago
So put the binary in the container. Why does it have to be compiled within the container?
- hu3 1y ago
  That is what they are doing. It's a 2 stage Dockerfile. First stage compiles the code. This is good for isolation and reproducibility. Second stage is a lightweight container to run the compiled binary. Why is the author being attacked (by multiple comments) for not making things simpler when that was not claimed that as the goal. They are modernizing it. Containers are good practice for CI/CD anyway.
  - MobiusHorizons 1y ago
    That’s a reasonable deployment strategy, but a pretty terrible local development strategy
    - taberiand 1y ago
      Devcontainers are a good compromise though - you can develop within a context that can be very nearly identical to production; with a bit of finagling you could even use the same dockerfile for the devcontainer, and the build image and the deployed image
  - AndrewDucker 1y ago
    I'm not sure why "complicate things unnecessarily" is considered more modern. Don't do what you don't need to do.
    - hu3 1y ago
      You realize the author is compiling a Rust webserver for a static website right? They are already long past the point of "complicate things unnecessarily". A simple Dockerfile pales in comparison.
  - adastra22 1y ago
    Because he spends a good deal of the intro complaining that this makes his dev practice slow. So don’t do it! It has nothing to do with docker but rather the fact he is wiping the cache on every triggered build.
dwattttt 1y ago
Mightily resisting the urge to be flippant, but all of those benefits were achieved before Docker. Docker is a (the, in some areas) modern way to do it, but far from the only way.
a3w 1y ago
Increased security compared to bare hardware, lower than VMs. Also, lower than Jails and RKT (Rocket) which seems to be dead.
eeZah7Ux 1y ago
> process isolation, increased security no, that's sandboxing.

jerf 1y ago

Also strikes me as not fully understanding what exactly docker is doing. In reference to building everything in a docker image: "Unfortunately, this will rebuild everything from scratch whenever there's any change." In this situation, with only one person as the builder, with no need for CI or CD or whatever, there's nothing wrong with building locally with all the local conveniences and just slurping the result into a docker container. Double-check any settings that may accidentally add paths if the paths have anything that would bother you. (In my case it would merely reveal that, yes, someone with my username built it and they have a "src" directory... you can tell how worried I am about both those tidbits by the fact I just posted them publicly.) It's good for CI/CD in a professional setting to ensure that you can build a project from a hard drive, a magnetic needle, and a monkey trained to scratch a minimal kernel on to it, and boot strap from there, but personal projects don't need that.

scuff3d 1y ago
Thank you! I got a couple minutes in and was confused as hell. There is no reason to do the builds in the container. Even at work, I have a few projects where we had to build a Java uber jar (all the dependencies bundled into one big far) and when we need it containerized we just copy the jar in. I honestly don't see much reason to do builds in the container unless there is some limitation in my CICD pipeline where I don't have access to necessary build tools.
- mike_hearn 1y ago
  It's pretty clear that this whole project was god-tier level procrastination so I wouldn't worry too much about the details. The original stated problem could have been solved with a 5-line shell script.
  - scuff3d 1y ago
    Not strictly related, but I got to the parts about using a dependency to speed up builds in the container, and that his website has "hundreds" of Rust dependencies, and I was reminded why I get so annoyed with Rust. It's a great language, but the practice of just duct taping a bunch of dependencies together drives me nuts.

vorgol 1y ago

Exactly. I immediately thought of the grug brain dev when I read that.