4 ms·

Sort of yes, sort of no. I also agree that Docker is incredibly buzzwordy and that most of the bullshit and hype around Docker could be done with other tools B

by evol262 12y ago

Sort of yes, sort of no. I also agree that Docker is incredibly buzzwordy and that most of the bullshit and hype around Docker could be done with other tools But the libcontainer networking stuff and integration with cgroups does provide more segmentation than chroots, and the networking parts are nice. Granted, I think the best possible use case for Docker is in shipping fat apps (ala OSX or Windows) so Spotify for Linux can run on anything that supports Docker instead of anything which supports dpkg, but eh.

quesera 12y ago
For me, Docker brings to mind the Henry Spencer quote, originally implicating Microsoft, that "Those who don't understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it"[1]. I totally understand the enthusiasm around OS containers. I forget sometimes that this is a new thing on Linux. Running Solaris and FreeBSD is like living in the future! [1] The full quote ends "...poorly", but Docker seems to done well-enough, just rather late to the party.
- evol262 12y ago
  But it isn't a new thing on Linux. lxc, vserver, openvz, and other projects also do what zones and jails do. Docker is not the same.
  - quesera 12y ago
    That's fair, I was writing imprecisely. The functionality has existed (at least primitively) on Linux for some time, but culturally Linux admins have been more drawn to HW level virtualization instead. OS-level virtualization has been a part of the FreeBSD and Solaris cultures for much longer. Another fair argument is that Docker does such a good job at abstracting the configuration and management of OS-level virtualization that it truly changes things. Maybe. But if that's true, it means that Linux admins have ignored this hugely useful technology because it was hidden behind an impenetrable wall of text-based configuration.

4 ms·

Sort of yes, sort of no. I also agree that Docker is incredibly buzzwordy and that most of the bullshit and hype around Docker could be done with other tools B

by evol262 12y ago

quesera 12y ago
For me, Docker brings to mind the Henry Spencer quote, originally implicating Microsoft, that "Those who don't understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it"[1]. I totally understand the enthusiasm around OS containers. I forget sometimes that this is a new thing on Linux. Running Solaris and FreeBSD is like living in the future! [1] The full quote ends "...poorly", but Docker seems to done well-enough, just rather late to the party.
- evol262 12y ago
  But it isn't a new thing on Linux. lxc, vserver, openvz, and other projects also do what zones and jails do. Docker is not the same.
  - quesera 12y ago
    That's fair, I was writing imprecisely. The functionality has existed (at least primitively) on Linux for some time, but culturally Linux admins have been more drawn to HW level virtualization instead. OS-level virtualization has been a part of the FreeBSD and Solaris cultures for much longer. Another fair argument is that Docker does such a good job at abstracting the configuration and management of OS-level virtualization that it truly changes things. Maybe. But if that's true, it means that Linux admins have ignored this hugely useful technology because it was hidden behind an impenetrable wall of text-based configuration.