5 ms·

My top wishlist for docker: Native windows support.

Ixiaus 13y ago
From my limited knowledge of Windows: that's highly unlikely. You're much more likely to see Docker start supporting FreeBSD jails with ZFS than you are Windows. Then again I know nothing of Windows and any containerization technology it may have...
- mburns 13y ago
  Solaris Zones support would be awesome. Still a longshot, but more likely than native Windows support, at least.
- emmelaich 13y ago
  http://www.sandboxie.com/ http://www.sandboxie.com/ ? Or perhaps build something off the Chromium sandboxing. http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/sandbox#TOC-Sandbox-windows-architecture http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/sandbox#...
tsmith 13y ago
Unfortunately, that's where the "containers are like VMs, but better!" argument breaks down. Linux Containers, which docker makes use of, are more like creating a "clone" of the currently running operating system with a boxed-in filesystem (and device-space?). You can't run a Windows container on a Linux host; neither can you run a Solaris container on a Linux host; ad nausium. With VMs, you can run whatever you want on whatever you want, assuming the processor architecture is compatible.
- nickstinemates 13y ago
  > Linux Containers, which docker makes use of, are more like creating a "clone" of the currently running operating system with a boxed-in filesystem (and device-space?). This is not accurate. I am currently running an Ubuntu Docker host, but a CentOS 6.4 based container, a Gentoo container, and a busybox container. As stated elsewhere in this thread, which I encourage you to read, Docker aims to solve problems that exist in container technologies across kernels by taking advantage of their strengths (Docker does not aim to replace libvirt/lxc/jails/zones) but instead to build abstractions on top of them for better building, management, discovery, and scale.
  - tsmith 13y ago
    It's 100% accurate. In your "counter-example", you're running four different userspaces/distributions on the same operating system kernel. You could have posted a useful clarification to my comment (e.g. "but you _can_ run different Linux distributions!") but instead have chosen to be condescending and inaccurate.
    - nickstinemates 13y ago
      Sorry, just read this response. I fail to find the place that I was condescending and assure you that was not my intent. My only comment was in response to 'creating a "clone" of the currently running operating system.' Which is not, in any sense, accurate. What is shared, as you correctly point out (and I do not refute) is that kernel and devices are not virtualized per container. So you're absolutely right, it's not like a VM. And it does break down, but none of that has to do with the part where your statement is incorrect, which I've addressed and expanded upon.
passfree 13y ago
Maybe it can happen with this: https://github.com/websecurify/node-vxdocker https://github.com/websecurify/node-vxdocker

From my limited knowledge of Windows: that's highly unlikely. You're much more likely to see Docker start supporting FreeBSD jails with ZFS than you are Windows. Then again I know nothing of Windows and any containerization technology it may have...

mburns 13y ago
Solaris Zones support would be awesome. Still a longshot, but more likely than native Windows support, at least.
emmelaich 13y ago
http://www.sandboxie.com/ http://www.sandboxie.com/ ? Or perhaps build something off the Chromium sandboxing. http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/sandbox#TOC-Sandbox-windows-architecture http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/sandbox#...

tsmith 13y ago

Unfortunately, that's where the "containers are like VMs, but better!" argument breaks down. Linux Containers, which docker makes use of, are more like creating a "clone" of the currently running operating system with a boxed-in filesystem (and device-space?). You can't run a Windows container on a Linux host; neither can you run a Solaris container on a Linux host; ad nausium. With VMs, you can run whatever you want on whatever you want, assuming the processor architecture is compatible.

nickstinemates 13y ago
> Linux Containers, which docker makes use of, are more like creating a "clone" of the currently running operating system with a boxed-in filesystem (and device-space?). This is not accurate. I am currently running an Ubuntu Docker host, but a CentOS 6.4 based container, a Gentoo container, and a busybox container. As stated elsewhere in this thread, which I encourage you to read, Docker aims to solve problems that exist in container technologies across kernels by taking advantage of their strengths (Docker does not aim to replace libvirt/lxc/jails/zones) but instead to build abstractions on top of them for better building, management, discovery, and scale.
- tsmith 13y ago
  It's 100% accurate. In your "counter-example", you're running four different userspaces/distributions on the same operating system kernel. You could have posted a useful clarification to my comment (e.g. "but you _can_ run different Linux distributions!") but instead have chosen to be condescending and inaccurate.
  - nickstinemates 13y ago
    Sorry, just read this response. I fail to find the place that I was condescending and assure you that was not my intent. My only comment was in response to 'creating a "clone" of the currently running operating system.' Which is not, in any sense, accurate. What is shared, as you correctly point out (and I do not refute) is that kernel and devices are not virtualized per container. So you're absolutely right, it's not like a VM. And it does break down, but none of that has to do with the part where your statement is incorrect, which I've addressed and expanded upon.

passfree 13y ago

Maybe it can happen with this: https://github.com/websecurify/node-vxdocker https://github.com/websecurify/node-vxdocker