5 ms·

This focus on "container OSes" is baffling to me. Just use one of the well maintained, general purpose distros such as Debian with a minimal set of software.

This focus on "container OSes" is baffling to me. Just use one of the well maintained, general purpose distros such as Debian with a minimal set of software. We don't need specialized distros for this.

rubiquity 11y ago
It's all part of the Docker/Container cash grab I'm afraid.
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
The current app container model as it is takes the form of binary images managed by a de facto runtime that enforces namespace, cgroup and other boundaries by using kernel subsystems for logical partitioning. Unlike system containers like LXC, appc means you now have an explosion of the state space whereby every container has their own independent copy of a host OS, yet relies on the semantics of its container manager to function, i.e. it is not easily introspectable with vanilla tools. So you end up needing to build a small parallel userspace to handle things like service discovery, orchestration and provisioning, networking bridges, location transparency, resource scheduling and taken to its logical conclusion you start running a user-mode kernel (Mesos) on top of a base OS kernel (Linux) to provide further abstractions of OS resources and run extended versions of OS processes called frameworks. I don't know if it's too early to tell, but I think people might have dug themselves into a ditch where in an attempt to escape the limitations of their kernel and userland, they've only expanded it with a concurrent layer and must maintain both.
- jacques_chester 11y ago
  > So you end up needing to build a small parallel userspace to handle things like service discovery, orchestration and provisioning, networking bridges, location transparency, resource scheduling Or you install a PaaS, which does these for you. I've worked on Cloud Foundry, OpenShift is a competitor. Both are far superior to rolling your own.
Touche 11y ago
Yes, agreed, there are already many good OSes that can run containers fine. I run many "containers" (jails) on FreeBSD, I don't need a specialized OS for this. SmartOS can do this well. And like you said, Debian would be fine running Docker or whatever else.
eurmag 11y ago
There is still big amount of specialized software and things like tuned kernels, enhanced networking and so on in such OSes. For example CoreOS comes with lots of tools helping to orchestrate and manage those clusters.
- davexunit 11y ago
  A specialized kernel package, etc. can be made for any distro.
  - eurmag 11y ago
    And after that will be named `AnotherBrandNewOs`.
    - davexunit 11y ago
      Why? A new kernel config doesn't change the fact that I'm running <insert distro here>. edit: the joke flew over my head.
      - eurmag 11y ago
        >> `AnotherBrandNewOs` > Why? This is kind of irony about today situation in the world of OSes.
sanderjd 11y ago
I'm not so sure. General purpose distros are beholden to many interests that are likely to be irrelevant to "just" running containers, and likely to affect decision making regarding features, schedules, and priorities. One of the major advantages of Linux is that it can be customized to suit particular needs; I'm not sure why it is "baffling" to take advantage of that capability to specialize based on narrow and specific use cases.
justincormack 11y ago
Well CoreOS (for example) has a different update model, much more frequent, failover back to previous image in case of error and so on, that should help uptime overall. And it has a minimal config that can be set in a single config file. It is a different model.
api 11y ago
But it's Docker so we have to rebuild everything multiple times now: six new distributions, twenty new app schedulers, fifty new network stacks. Because Docker.

rubiquity 11y ago

It's all part of the Docker/Container cash grab I'm afraid.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

The current app container model as it is takes the form of binary images managed by a de facto runtime that enforces namespace, cgroup and other boundaries by using kernel subsystems for logical partitioning. Unlike system containers like LXC, appc means you now have an explosion of the state space whereby every container has their own independent copy of a host OS, yet relies on the semantics of its container manager to function, i.e. it is not easily introspectable with vanilla tools. So you end up needing to build a small parallel userspace to handle things like service discovery, orchestration and provisioning, networking bridges, location transparency, resource scheduling and taken to its logical conclusion you start running a user-mode kernel (Mesos) on top of a base OS kernel (Linux) to provide further abstractions of OS resources and run extended versions of OS processes called frameworks. I don't know if it's too early to tell, but I think people might have dug themselves into a ditch where in an attempt to escape the limitations of their kernel and userland, they've only expanded it with a concurrent layer and must maintain both.

jacques_chester 11y ago
> So you end up needing to build a small parallel userspace to handle things like service discovery, orchestration and provisioning, networking bridges, location transparency, resource scheduling Or you install a PaaS, which does these for you. I've worked on Cloud Foundry, OpenShift is a competitor. Both are far superior to rolling your own.

Touche 11y ago

Yes, agreed, there are already many good OSes that can run containers fine. I run many "containers" (jails) on FreeBSD, I don't need a specialized OS for this. SmartOS can do this well. And like you said, Debian would be fine running Docker or whatever else.

eurmag 11y ago

There is still big amount of specialized software and things like tuned kernels, enhanced networking and so on in such OSes. For example CoreOS comes with lots of tools helping to orchestrate and manage those clusters.

davexunit 11y ago
A specialized kernel package, etc. can be made for any distro.
- eurmag 11y ago
  And after that will be named `AnotherBrandNewOs`.
  - davexunit 11y ago
    Why? A new kernel config doesn't change the fact that I'm running <insert distro here>. edit: the joke flew over my head.
    - eurmag 11y ago
      >> `AnotherBrandNewOs` > Why? This is kind of irony about today situation in the world of OSes.

sanderjd 11y ago

I'm not so sure. General purpose distros are beholden to many interests that are likely to be irrelevant to "just" running containers, and likely to affect decision making regarding features, schedules, and priorities. One of the major advantages of Linux is that it can be customized to suit particular needs; I'm not sure why it is "baffling" to take advantage of that capability to specialize based on narrow and specific use cases.

justincormack 11y ago

Well CoreOS (for example) has a different update model, much more frequent, failover back to previous image in case of error and so on, that should help uptime overall. And it has a minimal config that can be set in a single config file. It is a different model.

api 11y ago

But it's Docker so we have to rebuild everything multiple times now: six new distributions, twenty new app schedulers, fifty new network stacks. Because Docker.