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

Bottlerocket: An operating system designed for hosting containers

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 121 posts

Re: Bottlerocket: An operating system designed for hosting containers

#61

Post by bibabaloo »

rhatr wrote: post #27
mwcampbell wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> way better than buildroot/yocto/etc for creating tight, single-purpose linux images Can you say more about the advantages over Buildroot and Yocto?

I'll take Buildroot, and Bitbake first (Yocto itself is slight different we'll get to that later). Both Buildroot, Bitbake share the ultimate goal with all these news systems like linuxkit and bottle rocket. They all aim at producing single-image, pruprose built linux distros based on the very same usual suspects of upstream components. So the question really two-fold: out-of-the box availability of said upstream com…

> These next generation systems, on the other hand, don't pretend that you can build a host OS in any shape or form you want (hence very few base packages) but rather that you build "just enough of Linux to run containerd" -- the rest of what you would typically put into your baseOS goes into various containers. This is a very different approach to constructing the bootable system, but subtly so -- which I don't think a lot of people on either side of this debate appreciate.

This is a valid approach if you want to build something that can only run containers, but IMO is somewhat orthogonal to the Yocto and Buildroot goal of building distros for embedded platforms.

It's awesome that people are making new tools to do similar things to Yocto and Buildroot in this post-container world, but I don't think it's really fair to say that bottlerocket is a direct competitor to Yocto/Buildroot. It's probably fairer to say that bottlerocket makes it easier to do things that Yocto/Buildroot aren't really designed to do. Hopefully both live on, serving their own niche! I'm all for specialised tools rather than generic 'do it all' tools.

Re: Bottlerocket: An operating system designed for hosting containers

#62

Post by zokier »

unlinked_dll wrote: post #60
nstart wrote: post #34

Opening line from their announcement blog post: >It is safe to say that our industry has decided that containers are now the chosen way to package and scale applications. Curious how the HN community feels about that statement. Not so much about the truth of the statement but about the fact that containers are becoming the de facto method of packaging applications.

You need to prefix "applications" with "web" or "cloud."

Flatpaks and snaps, while maybe not as popular, are also containers

Re: Bottlerocket: An operating system designed for hosting containers

#63

Post by antonvs »

dpeterson wrote: post #59

Question for any Amazon folks here that may know. Is this akin to something like Atomic or CoreOS that is used within Openshift as the Master or Worker node OS or is this more like the UBI (Universal Base Image) that can be used as the base image of a container via "FROM" within a dockerfile?

You don't need Amazon folks, just read the material.

This is not a container base image, it's a container host OS. It is somewhat similar to Atomic or CoreOS, but in some ways it seems to be a bit more of a radical redesign than those.

Re: Bottlerocket: An operating system designed for hosting containers

#64

Post by DevoidSimo »

joana035 wrote: post #33
jontro wrote: post #18

Their take on using cargo for packaging is quite interesting: https://github.com/bottlerocket-os/bottlerocket/tree/develop...

They are using tradicional RPM for packaging. The cargo.toml workspaces relates more to make IMHO.

Correct, that toml file allows you to build everything from that level, and open editors on that folder with the language server functioning. RLS requires a cargo.toml file in the root of the workspace even if it just points at other directories

Re: Bottlerocket: An operating system designed for hosting containers

#66

Post by unlinked_dll »

zokier wrote: post #62
unlinked_dll wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to prefix "applications" with "web" or "cloud."

Flatpaks and snaps, while maybe not as popular, are also containers

They're also pretty terrible ways to distribute a native application and can be crippled due to their containerization.

Re: Bottlerocket: An operating system designed for hosting containers

#67

Post by hardwaresofton »

nstart wrote: post #34

Opening line from their announcement blog post: >It is safe to say that our industry has decided that containers are now the chosen way to package and scale applications. Curious how the HN community feels about that statement. Not so much about the truth of the statement but about the fact that containers are becoming the de facto method of packaging applications.

As far as I'm concerned, this is an obvious truth. Linux containers are processes with better sandboxing -- who would not want this?

As kinks in the kernel support and tech get worked out, and OSs deepen support I can't imagine that it will ever make sense to say something like "I could have run the process with cgroup and namespace isolation but I chose not to, choosing to make a new user-level isolation or run everything as root instead".

Arguments against containers as the future based on the complexity may have weight but not for long.

Re: Bottlerocket: An operating system designed for hosting containers

#68

Post by rfrfee »

whalesalad wrote: post #10

A link to the actual source code (90% Rust) and README: https://github.com/bottlerocket-os/bottlerocket And here is a post from AWS with more technical details: https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/bottlerocket-open-source-os...

Given that Red Hat recently killed CoreOS, it's great to see new alternatives coming up. I cannot wait to give it a spin!

Re: Bottlerocket: An operating system designed for hosting containers

#69

Post by dang »

bbgm wrote: post #30

I am from AWS. Could we please change the title to say “Bottlerocket from AWS“. Like Firecracker [1] it’s explicitly not AWS branded. 1. https://github.com/firecracker-microvm/firecracker

"Bottlerocket from AWS" sounds like a commercial. I've just taken AWS out of the title above.

Re: Bottlerocket: An operating system designed for hosting containers

#70

Post by listenallyall »

ignoramous wrote: post #46
bbgm wrote: post #30

I am from AWS. Could we please change the title to say “Bottlerocket from AWS“. Like Firecracker [1] it’s explicitly not AWS branded. 1. https://github.com/firecracker-microvm/firecracker

Speaking of branding, I've some questions: 1. When are services branded as AWS (AWS Fargate) vs Amazon (Amazon DynamoDB)? 2. Is BottleRocket a nod to SkyRocket [0] or a movie of the same name? 3. Why is it called Fargate [1]? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyrocket [1] https://youtube.com/watch?v=ye3-gUwu9tI&t=44m28s

Not just any movie, an absolutely terrific movie. Wes Anderson's first and best.
Post reply on HN