3 ms·

I recently tried using both Docker and LXC and I just had to ditch Docker. If you wanted something as "esoteric" as having normal networking in your container,

I recently tried using both Docker and LXC and I just had to ditch Docker. If you wanted something as "esoteric" as having normal networking in your container, you had to understand how Docker abstracted LXC in the first place, then find out how to do things the LXC way and then push your changes through, with some extra duct-tape with pipeworks. And if that's the start, before I've even done anything, I can't imagine things getting better. So Docker? No thanks. Then I'll just go ahead and use LXC directly. It involved a bit more research, but nothing you can't do in a few hours. And when you do, you can get to benefit from BTRFS volumes and having snapshot management tied directly to your containers. Maybe I'm missing something, but after fooling around with this for a few days, I can't see why anyone would choose the leaky abstraction that is Docker when you can just go with the real deal.

BozeWolf 13y ago
Did you try (redhat's)-libvirt? I used that for a project. It can use lxc, but also qemu and kvm. All with a generic interface (which actually is not so generic). It was quite nice to work with. I guess my project wasn't suited for docker. All i needed was an image to run a process in a custom environment. I didn't need the Dockerfile and versioning stuff. Which, in my opinion, is the reason to use docker. So instead of saying "Docker, no thanks", you probably did not find a suitable project. Which is good! I see a lot of people using docker, just because it's awesome and everybody on HN is talking about it.
- josteink 13y ago
  I used plain LXC with BTRFS and for my needs, that was exactly what I was looking for. And then I see no need to meddle in meta-frameworks to cover for potential use-cases I don't have, no matter how well they are engineered or tested.
nickstinemates 13y ago
While inflammatory and not related to the article, your feedback is appreciated. Docker obviously has some work to do, but, I think you do it a disservice by ignoring the rest of the cool stuff the ecosystem brings with it.

BozeWolf 13y ago

Did you try (redhat's)-libvirt? I used that for a project. It can use lxc, but also qemu and kvm. All with a generic interface (which actually is not so generic). It was quite nice to work with. I guess my project wasn't suited for docker. All i needed was an image to run a process in a custom environment. I didn't need the Dockerfile and versioning stuff. Which, in my opinion, is the reason to use docker. So instead of saying "Docker, no thanks", you probably did not find a suitable project. Which is good! I see a lot of people using docker, just because it's awesome and everybody on HN is talking about it.

josteink 13y ago
I used plain LXC with BTRFS and for my needs, that was exactly what I was looking for. And then I see no need to meddle in meta-frameworks to cover for potential use-cases I don't have, no matter how well they are engineered or tested.

nickstinemates 13y ago

While inflammatory and not related to the article, your feedback is appreciated. Docker obviously has some work to do, but, I think you do it a disservice by ignoring the rest of the cool stuff the ecosystem brings with it.