Docker is a dangerous gamble which we will regret (2018)
1–10 of 134 posts
Re: Docker is a dangerous gamble which we will regret (2018)
#2We should all move to Krubnernetes
Re: Docker is a dangerous gamble which we will regret (2018)
#3We should all move to Krubnernetes
$$$ Profit!!
Re: Docker is a dangerous gamble which we will regret (2018)
#4I have to agree a little bit..
One other thing that bothers me is when I don't WANT to run docker. Some packages/services actually make it tricky to achieve this. With some time being spent reversen engineering.
Docker is cool don't get me wrong, but it might be a bit over used sometimes. And I really don't think it needs to be this 1 way solution to everything.
Re: Docker is a dangerous gamble which we will regret (2018)
#5The archive link is down and the original article is dead, so I can't read it...
The comments on the article are not kind, however [1][2].
1. https://www.reddit.com/r/devops/comments/8j9yrn/docker_is_th...
2. https://www.reddit.com/r/docker/comments/8jk22u/docker_is_a_...
Re: Docker is a dangerous gamble which we will regret (2018)
#6I have to agree a little bit.. One other thing that bothers me is when I don't WANT to run docker. Some packages/services actually make it tricky to achieve this. With some time being spent reversen engineering. Docker is cool don't get me wrong, but it might be a bit over used sometimes. And I really don't think it needs to be this 1 way solution to everything.
The youngsters in my work keep sticking everything on docker to avoid packaging problems. I just makes running coed in a stepthrough debugger impossible so far (I know its possible but I haven't had the time to make it work yet).
One step forward two steps back.
Re: Docker is a dangerous gamble which we will regret (2018)
#7I completely agree. My team has spent the last several years building software we then deploy with Docker and Kubernetes, and looking back I think that our software would have been much better deployed as statically-linked binaries on simple Linux servers.
We're writing in Go, which means we already have the statically-linked binaries, which means we have a single file which needs to get deployed. What does Docker buy us? … a single file which gets deployed. We could get the same effect of Docker Hub by just scping versioned binaries.
Kubernetes is far worse, of course. It is an amazing ramshackle collection of disparate, ill-fitting parts which make everything 'easy' but nothing simple. It does buy us some useful things, but I don't think they are worth the cost.
A bunch of EC2 nodes running Debian, with a few dozen-line shell scripts to copy binaries around, would completely replace our usage of Docker and Kubernetes and drastically reduce the complexity of our system. We just don't need a lot of what Kubernetes does (no doubt others do), but we have to pay for it in complexity anyway.
I really do believe that in the future we will see a few companies be very successful by foregoing Docker + Kubernetes + Helm (yo dude, I heard your YAML was giving you problems so here's some more YAML to YAML your YAML into YAMLy submission!), and then a few years later we will all look back at this mess a little bit like people look at the Pet Rock craze.
Re: Docker is a dangerous gamble which we will regret (2018)
#8[deleted]
Re: Docker is a dangerous gamble which we will regret (2018)
#9I have to agree a little bit.. One other thing that bothers me is when I don't WANT to run docker. Some packages/services actually make it tricky to achieve this. With some time being spent reversen engineering. Docker is cool don't get me wrong, but it might be a bit over used sometimes. And I really don't think it needs to be this 1 way solution to everything.
The youngsters in my work keep sticking everything on docker to avoid packaging problems. I just makes running coed in a stepthrough debugger impossible so far (I know its possible but I haven't had the time to make it work yet). One step forward two steps back.
I had this problem too when my team first adopted docker, but you can use a conventional debugger if you run your container interactively (with -i.)
Re: Docker is a dangerous gamble which we will regret (2018)
#10I have to agree a little bit.. One other thing that bothers me is when I don't WANT to run docker. Some packages/services actually make it tricky to achieve this. With some time being spent reversen engineering. Docker is cool don't get me wrong, but it might be a bit over used sometimes. And I really don't think it needs to be this 1 way solution to everything.
The youngsters in my work keep sticking everything on docker to avoid packaging problems. I just makes running coed in a stepthrough debugger impossible so far (I know its possible but I haven't had the time to make it work yet). One step forward two steps back.
[deleted]