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

Docker for Mac Beta Review

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 367 posts

Re: Docker for Mac Beta Review

#111

Post by STRML »

I'm also in the beta, and I like it a lot. It's functionally equivalent to `dlite`, which Nathan LaFreniere has done an extremely good job on. He deserves massive credit for making OSX Docker dev bearable and for providing the inspiration for "Docker for Mac".

A few issues I've seen:

1. I cannot believe they are using `docker.local`. This hostname will cause nothing but trouble for years to come. DON'T USE `.local`! Apple has decided that `.local` belongs to Bonjour, and due to a longstanding bug with their IPv6 integration, you can expect to see a 5-10s random delay in your applications as Bonjour searches your local network to try to resolve `docker.local`. Yeah, you put it in your `/etc/hosts`? Doesn't matter. Still screws up. Use `docker.dev` or `local.docker`. [http://superuser.com/questions/370559/10-second-delay-for-lo...]

2. -beta8 is screwed up. It won't bind to its local ip anymore. The only option is to port forward from localhost. Unfortunately, Docker isn't offering a download of beta7. Thankfully, I still had the DMG around. 3. The polish is still lacking. Most menu bar items ask you to open up something else. 4. Why "Docker for Mac"? Couldn't the team think of a less confusing name? Now I have "Docker" running "docker".

Otherwise - great projects, and again, much credit to @nlf for `dlite`. If you're not part of the beta, check out dlite (https://github.com/nlf/dlite). It's at least as good as Docker for Mac.

Re: Docker for Mac Beta Review

#113

Post by WestCoastJustin »

ninofloris wrote: post #106
shykes wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're comfortable sharing your Docker ID, feel free to share it here and we'll fast-track you! Generally anyone who cares enough to ask directly, we'll automatically add to the top of the list. EDIT: or, feel free to contact us privately with a few details on your configuration and use case: feedback+hn@docker.com

Would love to try it out, could you add me to the top? My id is ninofloris

You'll need to have signed up at https://beta.docker.com/ first.

Re: Docker for Mac Beta Review

#114

Post by jochakovsky »

shykes wrote: post #91
shuzchen wrote: post #13

Can anybody in HN provide a quickpath into the beta? I signed up when it was first announced (seems to be over 30 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11352389 ) but haven't heard anything back yet.

If you're comfortable sharing your Docker ID, feel free to share it here and we'll fast-track you! Generally anyone who cares enough to ask directly, we'll automatically add to the top of the list. EDIT: or, feel free to contact us privately with a few details on your configuration and use case: feedback+hn@docker.com

Would love to be fast-tracked, currently using Docker to work on an open-source project. Username is jochakovsky.

Re: Docker for Mac Beta Review

#115

Post by WestCoastJustin »

spectralblu wrote: post #108
shykes wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're comfortable sharing your Docker ID, feel free to share it here and we'll fast-track you! Generally anyone who cares enough to ask directly, we'll automatically add to the top of the list. EDIT: or, feel free to contact us privately with a few details on your configuration and use case: feedback+hn@docker.com

I'd like in as well. Docker ID is same as my HN username: spectralblu Thanks!

You'll need to have signed up at https://beta.docker.com/ first.

Re: Docker for Mac Beta Review

#116

Post by derefr »

zxcvcxz wrote: post #99
mwcampbell wrote: post #90

Sounds promising. But I'd like to see Docker work with Microsoft to produce something even better for Windows, using the new Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL). With WSL, Docker and Microsoft should be able to bring Linux-based Docker containers to Windows, without the performance hit and resource fragmentation that inevitably come with virtualization. True, WSL doesn't support namespaces and cgroups, but IIUC, Window…

What is the use case though? What would be even better is if MS created a "windows container" that could run under Linux, then you could just ditch windows all together. I don't see big companies using something this hackish for containers that are running on servers anyway. For working on the desktop this might come in handy for devs, but honestly I think MS should focus their energy on something else.

Keep in mind, Linux containers work since there's only one Linux kernel, and the rest of the OS is just files that can be stuck into the container. Anything that can pretend to be the Linux kernel (like a Solaris "branded zone") can run a Linux container.

But you'd actually need many different kinds of "Windows container", since Windows actually has an abundance of kernel-exposed runtimes: the DOS VMM, Win16 with cooperative threading, Win32 with COM, WinNT, WinRT, the POSIX subsystem...

You could certainly write a particular container runtime to allow a specific type of app (e.g. WinRT apps) to run, and that might be enough to enable developers going forward to target both Windows and Linux hosts for their Windows apps. But that would hardly be Windows, in the sense of being able to have your app launch arbitrary other "Windows" processes in the same container the way that Docker apps do with arbitrary Linux processes.

Having all the machinery to simulate all the vagueries that have changed in the Windows OS core over time, such that one container could contain any and all Windows processes running together, would be a much harder challenge. I don't know what the combined surface area of all the runtimes the Windows kernel exposes looks like, but I can't imagine it'd be something even MS could re-implement as a Linux-kernel translation layer easily (especially considering all the compatibility shims each layer provides to make specific apps work, that would have to be carried forward into the translation layer.)

Re: Docker for Mac Beta Review

#117

Post by tharshan09 »

shykes wrote: post #91
shuzchen wrote: post #13

Can anybody in HN provide a quickpath into the beta? I signed up when it was first announced (seems to be over 30 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11352389 ) but haven't heard anything back yet.

If you're comfortable sharing your Docker ID, feel free to share it here and we'll fast-track you! Generally anyone who cares enough to ask directly, we'll automatically add to the top of the list. EDIT: or, feel free to contact us privately with a few details on your configuration and use case: feedback+hn@docker.com

tharshan09

Thanks!

Re: Docker for Mac Beta Review

#118

Post by WestCoastJustin »

tharshan09 wrote: post #117
shykes wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're comfortable sharing your Docker ID, feel free to share it here and we'll fast-track you! Generally anyone who cares enough to ask directly, we'll automatically add to the top of the list. EDIT: or, feel free to contact us privately with a few details on your configuration and use case: feedback+hn@docker.com

tharshan09 Thanks!

You'll need to have signed up at https://beta.docker.com/ first.

Re: Docker for Mac Beta Review

#119

Post by jimmcslim »

m_mueller wrote: post #97
jdub wrote: post #14

Same experience here, both on Mac and Windows. They've done a great job making it "just work". The user interface pieces are a bit raw -- perhaps "minimalist" or "unobtrusive" would put that in a better light! -- but clearly most of the work has gone into the lower level integration, where it shines. Docker for Mac/Windows, once released, will nuke the ick factor on those platforms from orbit, which can only lead to…

I hope there's going to be an easy way to package this with your own docker image in order to have a new way to distribute applications. My usecase is running a server locally so you can use a webapp with local network speed and offline access and lots of local storage.

Isn't that Sandstorm's usecase... more or less?

Re: Docker for Mac Beta Review

#120

Post by cridenour »

shykes wrote: post #91
shuzchen wrote: post #13

Can anybody in HN provide a quickpath into the beta? I signed up when it was first announced (seems to be over 30 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11352389 ) but haven't heard anything back yet.

If you're comfortable sharing your Docker ID, feel free to share it here and we'll fast-track you! Generally anyone who cares enough to ask directly, we'll automatically add to the top of the list. EDIT: or, feel free to contact us privately with a few details on your configuration and use case: feedback+hn@docker.com

My docker id is the same as this: cridenour
Post reply on HN