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

Android container in Chrome OS

chromium.googlesource.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 140 posts

Re: Android container in Chrome OS

#51

Post by jacksmith21006 »

GoneToThailand wrote: post #42
quantumwoke wrote: post #4

I can't wait for the day that phone operating systems development environments are a docker pull away. It's encouraging to see Google approaching my ideal workflow using containerisation. Apple systems are great until you run into the garden walls and are forced to use closed-source single platform software like Xcode. Chrome OS and Android are a lot more open in many respects. Hopefully efforts like this continue wi…

Docker is quite closed as well, so I am not sure if it is a good step in the right direction.

What do you mean? You can now run Docker fine on ChromeOS 67 and personally am doing it now on the machine I am typing this.

But you could even use Docker before all this new stuff by putting in developer, install Crouton but you had to use rkt to launch the Docker containers but worked fine.

With ChromeOS 67 no longer necessary.

Re: Android container in Chrome OS

#52

Post by coldtea »

GoneToThailand wrote: post #47
kenny_r wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you tell us exactly which part of Docker you think is "quite closed"? Docker (Moby) is licensed under Apache 2.0, and so is containerd, the default runtime.

A license unfortunately doesn’t tell the truth, but their actions. They’re extremely closed.

A license means that "their actions" don't matter.

Re: Android container in Chrome OS

#53

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

reggieband wrote: post #26

I just had a vision of all major OS projects providing developer containers for their projects. Like, you could just pull the latest Firefox dev container and run a single command to have a running debuggable app. I know one of the major pains we have when on-boarding new people is the whole dance to get to that first working build / first meaningful change. I can imagine this being significantly more simple if a wor…

You know, there once was a time when we did everything in folders and didn't need the overhead of containerization just to keep well behaved things from stepping all over each other and breaking everything.

Like all progress in computing we've reinvented the wheel, but now with a few additional layers of abstraction and the consequential performance degradation.

Re: Android container in Chrome OS

#54

Post by shkkmo »

kuschku wrote: post #37
shkkmo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you missed the "Very easy with ChromeOS 67." this doesn't work in any Chrome browser on any OS

The question was how to get it working WITHOUT ChromeOS 67, on a normal desktop OS, such as fedora or ubuntu.

Well then the answer is that you can't.

Edit: Why would you expect to be able to use a Chrome OS feature on other operating systems?

Re: Android container in Chrome OS

#55

Post by jacksmith21006 »

reggieband wrote: post #45
jacksmith21006 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly what Google has done with ChromeOS 67. You can run GNU/Linux applications as containers. But extra safe as a container on a separate kernel through a VM using KVM. Versus they did Android as a container on the same Linux kernel as ChromeOS. But locked to only an Android container.

You mention "run GNU/Linux applications as containers" but is that a full dev environment? As in, I can open a cpp file or whatever, make a change, run a single command and I can see my changes?

Yes a full dev environment as of ChromeOS 67.

How you want to use is your choice.

But it looks like Google will package GNU/Linux applications as containers that you can just run.

You can use what they have enabled in other ways as I am already doing on a PB with ChromeOS 67.

Re: Android container in Chrome OS

#56

Post by kbenson »

lmm wrote: post #49
kenny_r wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you tell us exactly which part of Docker you think is "quite closed"? Docker (Moby) is licensed under Apache 2.0, and so is containerd, the default runtime.

The tight coupling to systemd which refuses to standardise any "internal" interfaces and insists on taking over the entirety of one's system. You can't run Docker if you're not running systemd, you can't run systemd if you're not running udevd and logd and so on, you can't run those if you're not running not just Linux but essentially only the "current" version of Linux, and if you ever implement a compatible replace…

So fork it? What you outline doesn't mean it's a closed system, it means they have different goals than you and don't want to support your use case. The fact that it's open and you can submit contributions, even if they aren't accepted, is proof that it's not a closed system. Make your own fork and use that. And if that's too much work, why would you expect someone else to do it for you for free?

Re: Android container in Chrome OS

#57

Post by michaelmrose »

lmm wrote: post #49
kenny_r wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you tell us exactly which part of Docker you think is "quite closed"? Docker (Moby) is licensed under Apache 2.0, and so is containerd, the default runtime.

The tight coupling to systemd which refuses to standardise any "internal" interfaces and insists on taking over the entirety of one's system. You can't run Docker if you're not running systemd, you can't run systemd if you're not running udevd and logd and so on, you can't run those if you're not running not just Linux but essentially only the "current" version of Linux, and if you ever implement a compatible replace…

I think instead of them not being open you mean to communicate that they are assholes who don't work with others? If you are going to be critical be accurate too.

Re: Android container in Chrome OS

#58

Post by hawski »

xrd wrote: post #38

Does anyone have a link to what Chromebooks will support ChromeOS 67? Is there a matrix somewhere?

I'm assumng that it will be very close to the Android support list [0]. I'm a bit sad that NaCl Dev Environment [1] went nowhere, because I think, that my Acer Chromebook 13 will never be otherwise supported. That's also a reason for me to not buy ARM. I'm mildly counting on the hypothetical AMD Chromebook.

However my miniscule trust in corporations is getting even smaller lately, so I don't know what I will do when my Chromebook will see it's inevitable EOL. As much as I like technology behind ChromeOS I would prefer to finish my own Linux distribution project.

[0] https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/chrome-os-systems-suppo...

[1] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/nacl-development-e...

[2] https://chromeunboxed.com/news/amd-chromebook-in-development...

Re: Android container in Chrome OS

#59

Post by Phrodo_00 »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #53
reggieband wrote: post #26

I just had a vision of all major OS projects providing developer containers for their projects. Like, you could just pull the latest Firefox dev container and run a single command to have a running debuggable app. I know one of the major pains we have when on-boarding new people is the whole dance to get to that first working build / first meaningful change. I can imagine this being significantly more simple if a wor…

You know, there once was a time when we did everything in folders and didn't need the overhead of containerization just to keep well behaved things from stepping all over each other and breaking everything. Like all progress in computing we've reinvented the wheel, but now with a few additional layers of abstraction and the consequential performance degradation.

> keep well behaved things from stepping all over each other and breaking everything

Containers help with keeping bad behaviors from stepping all over each other.

Re: Android container in Chrome OS

#60

Post by digi_owl »

lmm wrote: post #49
kenny_r wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you tell us exactly which part of Docker you think is "quite closed"? Docker (Moby) is licensed under Apache 2.0, and so is containerd, the default runtime.

The tight coupling to systemd which refuses to standardise any "internal" interfaces and insists on taking over the entirety of one's system. You can't run Docker if you're not running systemd, you can't run systemd if you're not running udevd and logd and so on, you can't run those if you're not running not just Linux but essentially only the "current" version of Linux, and if you ever implement a compatible replace…

Err, no. Docker is not coupled to Systemd. If anything Systemd is competing with Docker via their nspawn sub-system.

I could have sworn there has been even a few instances of Systemd cock blocking Docker even though Docker had a clear precedence.

Post reply on HN