3 ms·
To support containers, is Linux necessary? Nope, it's just software. With enough money, you can do whatever you want. Linux isn't necessary, nothing really i
by forgottenpass 11y ago
To support containers, is Linux necessary?
Nope, it's just software. With enough money, you can do whatever you want. Linux isn't necessary, nothing really is, but it's a very practical choice. The shorter path is to strip down linux as much as possible and then diverge from traditional use, rather than build something entirely new from scratch. Plus you have a rich environment from the get go, and can share platform advances back and forth with ease.
- Animats 11y ago"share platform advances back and forth with ease." Which means "do system administration". The advantage of not having much machinery underneath is that it reduces the need to change it. It also reduces the attack surface for security holes.
- forgottenpass 11y agoWhich means "do system administration". Not really, to me I mean code reuse. The article is CoreOS, so lets look at that context. Right now if a performance bottleneck is fixed in the network subsystem of the linux kernel, CoreOS feels that benefit. But micro-kernel-deisnged-for-running-containers-on-top-of-Xen-OS won't share that benefit. Of course one could argue that MK-X-OS doesn't have the bottleneck in the first place, and maybe it doesn't, that's not my point. I'm saying it's duplicated effort. I don't know what you're on about with too much machinery underneath, I'm not saying to keep libfoo and interactive logins around if you don't need them. Just that nobody has to reinvent the libbar wheel.