6 ms·

What is a package manager except a macro combination of tar+wget+a dependency graph?

by DannoHung 13y ago

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- shykes 13y ago
  Docker maintainer here. This is a common misconception, and I find it disappointing. On the one hand we glorify simple designs and the unix philosophy of doing one thing well... Only to trivialize and look down upon projects which apply this philosophy. It's so simple... it's not "real technology"!. No wonder so many projects are so complicated - that's how you prove to your peers that you're a real man! Now to address the initial comment: docker has different goals from lxc. There's a summary of the differences here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17989306/what-does-docker-add-to-just-plain-lxc http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17989306/what-does-docker...
  - staunch 13y ago
    I deleted my comment before you replied, because while I tried not to made it rude, I decided there's no reason to add another negative voice to this thread. The fact is that Docker is very useful, but it really is simplistic from a technical perspective. It's a front-end that leverages the very impressive and very hard work done to create Linux, LXC, Aufs, etc. Those guys deserve 98% of the credit that Docker is getting, which I admit does irritate me to some degree. Yes, Docker is a high level abstraction that could use OpenVZ or something else, but if it used OpenVZ I'd just say that the OpenVZ guys deserve most of the credit -- having done most of the hard work. Docker is the kind of thing that companies create internally all the time, the way you did at dotCloud. It's very neat that you open sourced it, and that it has brought attention to another way of doing application deployment, but that doesn't make it a revolutionary technology.
    - derefr 13y ago
      The revolution isn't in the technology. You're right; Docker is just a standardization of the use of these other components, for people to rally around. But the rallying-around is the revolutionary part. If everyone builds their own Docker, we can't interoperate at a "container" level. If everyone settles on one container format, we can. In my opinion, Docker-the-implementation is only interesting insofar as it increases the network-effect of Docker-the-container-format. :)
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
    - FooBarWidget 13y ago
      Likewise, it irritates me when people put something down for popularizing an idea without too much technology. This "who needs marketing? all we need is code!" code is exactly why desktop Linux never took off. Popularization and marketing by themselves are very important, I'd wager at least as important as the code. What good does your code do if few people know about it or how to use it? The Docker guys are doing LXC, Linux, Aufs etc a huge favor.
      - staunch 13y ago
        I think you could argue that Docker (and similar projects sure to come) are merely the inevitable result of creating technology that's extremely useful and publicly available. No one marketed Xen, OpenVZ, or KVM. They run on millions of servers today. Certainly no one confuses those technologies with the many wrappers for them. And I'm not trying to hate on Docker either. I think it's cool and I'm sure the guys that work on it are nice. But I must agree with the root comment (though not his tone). From a purely technical perspective it's not very interesting or irreplaceable, the way that OpenVZ or lxc are.
        shykes 13y ago
        > From a purely technical perspective it's not very interesting or irreplaceable, the way that OpenVZ or lxc are. Obviously I am biased since I work on Docker. But I completely disagree. I believe Docker has the potential to be quite important and quite irreplaceable (in other words: useful!), although in a very different way than openvz and lxc. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be spending so much energy working on it. And if you don't understand why developing Docker is a lot of work - actual engineering work, not marketing, although that is important too - well one of us is overestimating his understanding of the topic :)

What is a package manager except a macro combination of tar+wget+a dependency graph?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

shykes 13y ago
Docker maintainer here. This is a common misconception, and I find it disappointing. On the one hand we glorify simple designs and the unix philosophy of doing one thing well... Only to trivialize and look down upon projects which apply this philosophy. It's so simple... it's not "real technology"!. No wonder so many projects are so complicated - that's how you prove to your peers that you're a real man! Now to address the initial comment: docker has different goals from lxc. There's a summary of the differences here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17989306/what-does-docker-add-to-just-plain-lxc http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17989306/what-does-docker...
- staunch 13y ago
  I deleted my comment before you replied, because while I tried not to made it rude, I decided there's no reason to add another negative voice to this thread. The fact is that Docker is very useful, but it really is simplistic from a technical perspective. It's a front-end that leverages the very impressive and very hard work done to create Linux, LXC, Aufs, etc. Those guys deserve 98% of the credit that Docker is getting, which I admit does irritate me to some degree. Yes, Docker is a high level abstraction that could use OpenVZ or something else, but if it used OpenVZ I'd just say that the OpenVZ guys deserve most of the credit -- having done most of the hard work. Docker is the kind of thing that companies create internally all the time, the way you did at dotCloud. It's very neat that you open sourced it, and that it has brought attention to another way of doing application deployment, but that doesn't make it a revolutionary technology.
  - derefr 13y ago
    The revolution isn't in the technology. You're right; Docker is just a standardization of the use of these other components, for people to rally around. But the rallying-around is the revolutionary part. If everyone builds their own Docker, we can't interoperate at a "container" level. If everyone settles on one container format, we can. In my opinion, Docker-the-implementation is only interesting insofar as it increases the network-effect of Docker-the-container-format. :)
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - FooBarWidget 13y ago
    Likewise, it irritates me when people put something down for popularizing an idea without too much technology. This "who needs marketing? all we need is code!" code is exactly why desktop Linux never took off. Popularization and marketing by themselves are very important, I'd wager at least as important as the code. What good does your code do if few people know about it or how to use it? The Docker guys are doing LXC, Linux, Aufs etc a huge favor.
    - staunch 13y ago
      I think you could argue that Docker (and similar projects sure to come) are merely the inevitable result of creating technology that's extremely useful and publicly available. No one marketed Xen, OpenVZ, or KVM. They run on millions of servers today. Certainly no one confuses those technologies with the many wrappers for them. And I'm not trying to hate on Docker either. I think it's cool and I'm sure the guys that work on it are nice. But I must agree with the root comment (though not his tone). From a purely technical perspective it's not very interesting or irreplaceable, the way that OpenVZ or lxc are.
      - shykes 13y ago
        > From a purely technical perspective it's not very interesting or irreplaceable, the way that OpenVZ or lxc are. Obviously I am biased since I work on Docker. But I completely disagree. I believe Docker has the potential to be quite important and quite irreplaceable (in other words: useful!), although in a very different way than openvz and lxc. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be spending so much energy working on it. And if you don't understand why developing Docker is a lot of work - actual engineering work, not marketing, although that is important too - well one of us is overestimating his understanding of the topic :)