Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: dockerc – Docker image to static executable "compiler"

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 150 posts

Re: Show HN: dockerc – Docker image to static executable "compiler"

#21

Post by NilsIRL »

ryukoposting wrote: post #15

The 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…

> It would make sense that a tool like this would prioritize MacOS/Windows support above all else.

Yep, unfortunately I've not had the time to make it work well on those platforms. I got an initial demo working on MacOS but I'm currently facing the issue that I'm unable to statically compile QEMU on MacOS. I've also started writing a VirtualizationFramework[0] based backend.

> Why would QEMU even necessary? Docker runs fine on Windows.

When docker runs on Windows/MacOS it's actually running the containers in a Linux VM. Containers rely on features provided by the Linux kernel.

> Maybe it's to avoid requiring the user to install Docker?

The main reason to use dockerc is to avoid the user having to install Docker.

> Either way, asking the user to fiddle with Hyper-V settings is bad UX.

Yep I don't think that would be nice. I expect the experience to be transparent to the user.

[0]: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/virtualization

Re: Show HN: dockerc – Docker image to static executable "compiler"

#22

Post by soraminazuki »

frankjr wrote: post #8
dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #3

The 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...

I made the mistake of looking at the comments of that post’s author. All I can say is quite a few people would probably be glad to know that the author didn’t figure out how to install that OSINT tool.

Re: Show HN: dockerc – Docker image to static executable "compiler"

#23

Post by Maskawanian »

ryukoposting wrote: post #15

The 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…

Both the standard Windows and Mac OS versions of docker use VMs (Windows uses WSL2 and IIRC Mac OS uses Virtialization.framework) as the OSes don't provide the a linux kernel for the containerized userspace. If it didn't do this, it'd have to host Windows and Mac OS environments, which would defeat the portable nature of Docker.

Re: Show HN: dockerc – Docker image to static executable "compiler"

#24

Post by Cu3PO42 »

NilsIRL wrote: post #21
ryukoposting wrote: post #15

The 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…

> It would make sense that a tool like this would prioritize MacOS/Windows support above all else. Yep, unfortunately I've not had the time to make it work well on those platforms. I got an initial demo working on MacOS but I'm currently facing the issue that I'm unable to statically compile QEMU on MacOS. I've also started writing a VirtualizationFramework[0] based backend. > Why would QEMU even necessary? Docker ru…

> Yep, unfortunately I've not had the time to make it work well on those platforms. I got an initial demo working on MacOS but I'm currently facing the issue that I'm unable to statically compile QEMU on MacOS.

How static are we talking here? There's no reasonable way to not link dynamically against libSystem. Then again, that's obviously present on all Macs, so shouldn't be an issue.

> When docker runs on Windows/MacOS it's actually running the containers in a Linux VM.

True on macOS, but only partially true for Windows. There are actual Windows containers, running natively on Windows and runnihng Windows inside the containers.

But do you even want to distribute Windows binaries? Or are you looking for a way to transparently ship a Linux binary to Windows users?

> Yep I don't think that would be nice. I expect the experience to be transparent to the user.

Does this include automagically mounting filesystems?

Re: Show HN: dockerc – Docker image to static executable "compiler"

#26

Post by NilsIRL »

Cu3PO42 wrote: post #24
NilsIRL wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would make sense that a tool like this would prioritize MacOS/Windows support above all else. Yep, unfortunately I've not had the time to make it work well on those platforms. I got an initial demo working on MacOS but I'm currently facing the issue that I'm unable to statically compile QEMU on MacOS. I've also started writing a VirtualizationFramework[0] based backend. > Why would QEMU even necessary? Docker ru…

> Yep, unfortunately I've not had the time to make it work well on those platforms. I got an initial demo working on MacOS but I'm currently facing the issue that I'm unable to statically compile QEMU on MacOS. How static are we talking here? There's no reasonable way to not link dynamically against libSystem. Then again, that's obviously present on all Macs, so shouldn't be an issue. > When docker runs on Windows/Ma…

> How static are we talking here?

Enough for the executables to run everywhere. So I'm happy for system libraries to be dynamically linked.

> But do you even want to distribute Windows binaries?

That's what I'm imagining. A windows binary that starts a Linux VM in which the container runs.

> Does this include automagically mounting filesystems?

Yep, inside of the Linux kernel. Here's what PID 1 looks like: https://github.com/NilsIrl/dockerc/blob/non_linux/src/init.z...

Re: Show HN: dockerc – Docker image to static executable "compiler"

#28

Post by pvg »

k8svet wrote: post #17

Folks will literally shove a container runtime, FUSE, and operating system image into a binary to avoid going to thera... learning Nix.

Omit internet tropes.

Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Show HN: dockerc – Docker image to static executable "compiler"

#29

Post by Cu3PO42 »

Let me start by saying this looks like a fun project to work on and, honestly, that's reason enough for doing it.

As a solution to the problem of app distribution, I do have some concerns, though:

How do you deal with resource sharing? This starts with just filesystem mounts, but also concerns ports, possibly devices, and probably many other things I'm forgetting. Is this somehow configurable?

How does this compare to AppImage? IIRC that also puts everything into a squashfs.

If a user without CAP_SYS_USER_NS executes one of the binaries built by dockerc, do you handle that gracefully in any way?

Post reply on HN