4 ms·

Docker is written by developers of which there are too many. But it sucks to many of us who are sysadmins. Docker's networking isn't all that, and the storage i

by voidz 12y ago

Docker is written by developers of which there are too many. But it sucks to many of us who are sysadmins. Docker's networking isn't all that, and the storage is basically just nifty because of already-existent tech like AFS and BTRFS. I think docker is nothing more than a hype from a new generation who wants everything hip, simple, fun, fantastic and awesuummm and the older and more experienced sysadmins like me have seen this coming years ago. It was inevitable, and now it's just a matter of waiting until the lazy generation finds out what we've been seeing all along: Docker is an abstraction of other technologies and you don't need Docker at all.

jraedisch 12y ago
And everyone will eventually realize, that he/she should have learned those other technologies right from the start? Would it really be worth the effort, especially if you are devops and app dev in one person, always having to weigh benefits? Or could Docker in the end prove to be good enough?
matthewmacleod 12y ago
That's stupid. Developers want the ability to deploy applications easily, and keep them stateless. The tools to do that are of course available, and Docker builds on top of them to provide a much more effective interface than rolling an entire infrastructure from scratch each time. What the hell is wrong with that?
- gaius 12y ago
  No, he has a point. Why are applications hard to deploy and manage? Because of how they are structured. If deployability was factored in at the time applications were being designed, they would look very different. You know there were entire 1000-page books written on how to deploy RoR applications? Why was it ever so complicated? Any why is creating a problem that never existed before, then solving it, considered a good use of anyone's time?
  - matthewmacleod 12y ago
    It is complex to deploy applications because applications are complex. They have dependencies, they require reproducible environments. We want them to be scalable, so we can easily fire up more instances as required. Hand-waving this away as a problem that "never existed before" is nonsense. And increase in individual machine power and the demands of applications means that we now have—quite validly—more complex applications, and more of them running on each machine. Administration of this is objectively difficult, and Docker is one of the tools that will help to make it easier.
    - voidz 12y ago
      But you are not addressing what I am saying at all. I am saying that this is convenient for developers, but for us sysadmins, who have to implement Docker apps in already existent systems, it is just not all that convenient, so now we have a surplus of happy developers.... and the sysadmin "should just stop being so grumpy". Sysadmins are expected to cheer in the same happy way, but in my opinion, many of us already knew how to build the kick ass systems /without/ containerization that the new developers ("devops"... yuch) are so cheery about.
      - matthewmacleod 12y ago
        Sysadmins are expected to cheer in the same happy way, but in my opinion, many of us already knew how to build the kick ass systems /without/ containerization that the new developers ("devops"... yuch) are so cheery about. I don't think this is the case. My goal as a developer is to be able to deploy applications quickly and easily, to be able to scale them, and to avoid worrying about dependencies. That's all good practice. I still need a sysadmin to handle that infrastructure, so Docker et. al. are not a tool to replace sysadmins. That being the case, why do you think there is pressure from developers to adopt these tools? If sysadmins are generally capable of building 'kick ass systems' that offer the same features but without using Docker, then why aren't developers happy with the situation? Docker is a tool that allows sysadmins to provide these useful features without having to arse about building them by hand. It's a tool for sysadmins, and dismissing it out-of-hand in the way you do is totally stupid.
al2o3cr 12y ago
"now it's just a matter of waiting" Keep waiting. It'll make it way easier to replace you with a small shell script.

by voidz 12y ago

jraedisch 12y ago

And everyone will eventually realize, that he/she should have learned those other technologies right from the start? Would it really be worth the effort, especially if you are devops and app dev in one person, always having to weigh benefits? Or could Docker in the end prove to be good enough?

matthewmacleod 12y ago

That's stupid. Developers want the ability to deploy applications easily, and keep them stateless. The tools to do that are of course available, and Docker builds on top of them to provide a much more effective interface than rolling an entire infrastructure from scratch each time. What the hell is wrong with that?

gaius 12y ago
No, he has a point. Why are applications hard to deploy and manage? Because of how they are structured. If deployability was factored in at the time applications were being designed, they would look very different. You know there were entire 1000-page books written on how to deploy RoR applications? Why was it ever so complicated? Any why is creating a problem that never existed before, then solving it, considered a good use of anyone's time?
- matthewmacleod 12y ago
  It is complex to deploy applications because applications are complex. They have dependencies, they require reproducible environments. We want them to be scalable, so we can easily fire up more instances as required. Hand-waving this away as a problem that "never existed before" is nonsense. And increase in individual machine power and the demands of applications means that we now have—quite validly—more complex applications, and more of them running on each machine. Administration of this is objectively difficult, and Docker is one of the tools that will help to make it easier.
  - voidz 12y ago
    But you are not addressing what I am saying at all. I am saying that this is convenient for developers, but for us sysadmins, who have to implement Docker apps in already existent systems, it is just not all that convenient, so now we have a surplus of happy developers.... and the sysadmin "should just stop being so grumpy". Sysadmins are expected to cheer in the same happy way, but in my opinion, many of us already knew how to build the kick ass systems /without/ containerization that the new developers ("devops"... yuch) are so cheery about.
    - matthewmacleod 12y ago
      Sysadmins are expected to cheer in the same happy way, but in my opinion, many of us already knew how to build the kick ass systems /without/ containerization that the new developers ("devops"... yuch) are so cheery about. I don't think this is the case. My goal as a developer is to be able to deploy applications quickly and easily, to be able to scale them, and to avoid worrying about dependencies. That's all good practice. I still need a sysadmin to handle that infrastructure, so Docker et. al. are not a tool to replace sysadmins. That being the case, why do you think there is pressure from developers to adopt these tools? If sysadmins are generally capable of building 'kick ass systems' that offer the same features but without using Docker, then why aren't developers happy with the situation? Docker is a tool that allows sysadmins to provide these useful features without having to arse about building them by hand. It's a tool for sysadmins, and dismissing it out-of-hand in the way you do is totally stupid.

al2o3cr 12y ago

"now it's just a matter of waiting" Keep waiting. It'll make it way easier to replace you with a small shell script.