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

Docker's Second Death

tariqislam.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 286 posts

Re: Docker's Second Death

#201

Post by jacques_chester »

pm90 wrote: post #73
skrebbel wrote: post #11

I feel like I'm missing some key insight here. To me, the tl;dr of this post is: Kubernetes removed the need for Docker just to run container images in a k8s cluster, ergo, Docker is dead. But Kubernetes is super complicated . The author seems to assume that everybody wants to run everything in Kubernetes, but if I want to run some backend on some server (or maybe on a few servers), then it feels like extreme overkil…

Docker was always about making it easy for developers to build isolated applications. Kubernetes was about making it easy for cloud providers to support deploying these isolated applications in their systems. A lot of organizations tried to support docker swarm (or their own versions of an "ocean" of containers) but it was just too difficult, the products failed and/or were unreliable and docker didn't provide a tool…

> probably because kubernetes creators had experience from running an actual production system before viz. Borg

I think Red Hat deserve a lot of credit for being early to package and productionise Kubernetes.

Re: Docker's Second Death

#202

Post by deeringc »

politelemon wrote: post #49
grogenaut wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back in 2013 before I took a job at amazon but after working with a game dev for playstation I had 2 months off, playing with docker I realized how good it's be for crap like chroot jail dev or multi-project dev env isolation. There were big blockers for it being used this way then. I did some chatting with the docker team and we did push things a little in that direction. But the vision was still about running in pr…

Their collaboration work on integration with WSL 1 and 2 has been fantastic.

What's your workflow with WSL2 and docker for Windows?

Re: Docker's Second Death

#203

Post by nikisweeting »

user5994461 wrote: post #189
nikisweeting wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just define a depends_on: condition: service_healthy, works great in v2.4. v3 is really a different beast, it's not an upgrade in the traditional sense, more of a lateral move with the introduction of swarm. I've even seen Docker employees recommend in forums using v2 independently of v3 if you need certain features (I can try and dig up a link from my archive if you're interested). Compose file version 2 is not…

Problem being, "depends_on" was removed in version 3, with no replacement in sight. I honestly don't understand why they'd remove that? why make a new configuration format just to remove critical options? what is the developer supposed to do instead? when will compose stop accepting the v2 format so we're definitely screwed for good? (yes the writing is on the wall). P.S. For readers who don't have context. Make a ba…

This is an application-level design flaw, not a flaw inherent to docker-compose. Regardless of whether you use docker or even if you use containers at all, your webapp should be able to restart if the connection to the database fails or is interrupted for any reason.

You would have the same problem if you used supervisord for example. The general solution is to auto-retry the connection until it comes back up, or hard fail and auto-restart the entire app in the event of a hard failure (e.g. with restart: on-failure or autorestart=true).

Re: Docker's Second Death

#204

Post by chillfox »

hacknat wrote: post #51
hmottestad wrote: post #12

I enjoyed the following: > Though it [Docker] does live on strongly within CI/CD ecosystems and, ostensibly, the inner loop of development thanks to the de facto standard Dockerfile. Docker will still live on for both Windows and Mac developers. As a platform for running production code it might be dead or dying, but as an ecosystem and a development tool it will continue to live and probably thrive. Docker is still…

There’s no need for them to live on. There are open source alternatives that mimic Docker exactly. In fact on Fedora[1] the “docker” cli command is actually buildah and podman (you actually can’t install Docker on Fedora anymore - I genuinely haven’t noticed a difference). The commands are exactly the same right down to the command starting with the word “docker”. I don’t wish them ill, but literally everything has b…

Red Hat removed docker prematurely, Podman is not ready to replace docker for all production cases yet.

We have had to replace RHEL systems with Ubuntu to keep some of our applications running as they fail on Podman. A major problem is also that podman-compose is far from feature parity with docker-compose.

Re: Docker's Second Death

#205

Post by chillfox »

heavyset_go wrote: post #128
hacknat wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s no need for them to live on. There are open source alternatives that mimic Docker exactly. In fact on Fedora[1] the “docker” cli command is actually buildah and podman (you actually can’t install Docker on Fedora anymore - I genuinely haven’t noticed a difference). The commands are exactly the same right down to the command starting with the word “docker”. I don’t wish them ill, but literally everything has b…

podman claims to be a drop-in replacement for Docker, yet when I tried to treat it as one, I ran into bugs and a lack of feature parity.

Yep, same. We have had to replace RHEL with Ubuntu for container workloads to keep things working.

Re: Docker's Second Death

#206

Post by mwcampbell »

hacknat wrote: post #157
mwcampbell wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There’s no need for them to live on. Maybe not, but considering how much they gave, I think we should want them to live on, and do what we can to help them. Do we really want to live in a world where a startup company makes as big an impact on the way we develop and deploy software as Docker did, only to have all possible business taken from it by bigger players?

I understand this sentiment, but a lot of the original team and the certainly the original founder aren’t even there anymore. Not to mention that a lot of Docker’s business missteps have been self inflicted wounds. There have been lots of great technologies that haven’t directly made their creators rich, but their good legacy usually/eventually catches up with them.

> but their good legacy usually/eventually catches up with them.

I think that's the just-world fallacy. [1] It's up to us to reward good work. So I guess I should go get a paid Docker Hub account.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

Re: Docker's Second Death

#207

Post by int_19h »

ampdepolymerase wrote: post #100
santoshalper wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's a good read on the situation. I think a better analysis is that there is no money being what amounts to a facade on top of an operating system/kernel capability. All the real novelty and challenge to containers is in the OS itself. Everything else is more or less ease of use, which is important but relatively easy to replicate. In the span of 5 years or so, Docker went from being critical glue co…

That facade enabled millions to have easy access to that particular kernel feature. BSD jail's have been around for decades without mass adoption.

BSD jails weren't widely adopted because the BSDs themselves weren't widely adopted by the time the industry got to the point where something like Docker was increasingly seen as necessary. I remember being involved in one project that had to decide this exact question in the very early days of Docker - jails were much more stable back then, but customers wanted Linux containers, not "sufficiently Linux-like".

Re: Docker's Second Death

#208

Post by freedomben »

m463 wrote: post #200
freedomben wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work for Red Hat but I'm a long time fan and user of Docker. I don't think that's what this means at all honestly. Docker (the company) made some poor decisions that led to their troubles. I'm not here to crap on docker, but they quit investing in and moving their tool forward because they were focused on the EE offering. This opened the door for "competitors" to do the things docker wasn't doing (daemonless, rootl…

for me it seemed: - they stopped evolving the Dockerfile. Really this is the complexity killer that developers just "get". (also they wouldn't have their entire API cloned if they were moving it forward) - they subtly force everything through docker hub and conveniently forgot to do something like let people have a local repo. (redhat lets you define a local repo with --add-registry) - telemetry. I went to install it…

Great points. I think they started requiring an email and sign up too for the Mac download, although if you had a deep link that would still work but if you didn't already have it you had to sign up.

Re: Docker's Second Death

#210

Post by andrewguenther »

zapita wrote: post #166
X-Istence wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The op has posted in this thread that they are no longer at Red Hat... so your comment is wrong.

I’m talking about the lwn article. The post is by an ex-RH employee and clearly influenced by their experience at RH.

What is the claim here? That Red Hat are the ones being bullies and are misrepresenting the situation?
Post reply on HN