3 ms·

It was just a simplistic example. The point remains the same; there are use cases where people want an OS image that has a different kernel.

• viraptor 13y ago
  There's a question of "which people?" Sure, there are some cases where people will want their own OSes / images / kernels. But there's also a huge group of "people" who would prefer to make the whole issue of "image" disappear. They're more happy to deploy to heroku / dotcloud / something similar where they can have the NoOps environment. And for those providers secure containers will have a much lower overhead than full blown virtual machines.
  • ebbv 13y ago
    Yes this is true and I said that we will definitely see hosting products based on containers. I'm not disputing that point. You know what the most popular hosting product is right now? It's not VPSes. It's shared hosting. Good old simple shared hosting outsells VPSes by a huge margin. There's plenty of room for a variety of products, all the way from shared, to VPS, to container based to dedicated servers. What I took issue with was the original article saying that containers would make VMs a thing of the past, which is silly.
    • dedward 13y ago
      It is silly - it's apples and oranges. We will still need virtual machines for different operating systems, different versions of the same OS, multiple instances to span multiple VM hosts for scaling/redundancy, and so on. Containers will cut down on the number of VMs we have to deploy within an organisation, nominally... it will be a more effective way to manage resources. VMs won't go away, or even be diminished.