Same thing as Apptainer/Singularity? Or a different approach?
I always remember having issues using the Singularity outputs for anything that needed to interact with the filesystem.
Show HN: dockerc – Docker image to static executable "compiler"
11–20 of 150 posts
Re: Show HN: dockerc – Docker image to static executable "compiler"
#12So what does this mean? That I can finally ship portable Ruby executable without requiring the end user to install Ruby?
Yep! It works with any docker image!*
Re: Show HN: dockerc – Docker image to static executable "compiler"
#13I think it’s a great idea, but what kind of file size range should I expect?
Re: Show HN: dockerc – Docker image to static executable "compiler"
#14Curious about the choice of Zig, any specific reason for using it?
Probably because it has a super nice build toolchain, especially when you consider cross compilation.
There's quite a few folks using zig _just_ for the toolchain, while still writing C.
Re: Show HN: dockerc – Docker image to static executable "compiler"
#15The README indicates that this tool will only support Windows and MacOS through emulation. I find that odd.
Let's face it, if you're using Linux, you're comfortable typing some stuff into the terminal to install software. Or if you aren't comfortable with it yet, you will be soon. That's just the reality of using Linux. Even ignoring that, snap and flatpak apps provide a generally awful user experience, and I fail to see how this tool would do a better job.
That leaves Windows and MacOS users as the primary audience for software packaged using a tool like this. It would make sense that a tool like this would prioritize MacOS/Windows support above all else. Even the angry redditeur shown in the README clearly mentions .EXE files.
Why would QEMU even necessary? Docker runs fine on Windows. Maybe it's to avoid requiring the user to install Docker? Either way, asking the user to fiddle with Hyper-V settings is bad UX.
Re: Show HN: dockerc – Docker image to static executable "compiler"
#16I think it’s a great idea, but what kind of file size range should I expect?
It will depend heavily on the docker image you're trying to ship. For example with macos-cross-compiler[0] the resulting binary is over 2GB. With python:alpine[1] it's only 25MB.
Because the image isn't copied whether the image is 2GB or 25MB the startup time will be nearly instantaneous for both.
The runtime adds 6-7MB of overhead although I expect that this can be reduced to less than 3MB with some work.
[0]: https://github.com/shepherdjerred/macos-cross-compiler [1]: https://hub.docker.com/_/python
Re: Show HN: dockerc – Docker image to static executable "compiler"
#17Folks will literally shove a container runtime, FUSE, and operating system image into a binary to avoid going to thera... learning Nix.
Re: Show HN: dockerc – Docker image to static executable "compiler"
#18The Reddit screenshot is hilarious. But it reflects my feelings whenever I want to install a product made by many of these self-proclaimed "open source" companies that bend over backwards to make it almost impossible to install the open version (...and often to discover the crucial features are missing anyway).
I had to look it up because I couldn't believe it was real but... https://old.reddit.com/r/github/comments/1at9br4/i_am_new_to...
Interestingly, the OP also doesn't appear to have changed their tone since then. They were even active within the last week.
Re: Show HN: dockerc – Docker image to static executable "compiler"
#19Folks will literally shove a container runtime, FUSE, and operating system image into a binary to avoid going to thera... learning Nix.
Learning nix results in needing more therapy, though;)
Re: Show HN: dockerc – Docker image to static executable "compiler"
#20[deleted]