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

There is no such thing as a “glibc based alpine image”

ariadne.space

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 204 posts

Re: There is no such thing as a “glibc based alpine image”

#111

Post by MrStonedOne »

burnished wrote: post #107
MrStonedOne wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > what this guy is pissed off >Please don't assume everyone is a "guy". In this case, Ariadne is not a "he" (she uses "she"), so a male-coded word like "guy" is ill-fitting. Please do not mince words, people have a tenancy to refer to their own gender identity when referring to people who's gender identity they do not know. You knew what they meant. from the hn guidelines: > Please respond to the strongest plausibl…

There Are No Women On The Internet, so they got corrected. It isn't a bad faith interpretation, more like a gentle correction.

"somebody using a generic is really suggesting that women don't exist on the internet" sounds exactly like a bad faith interpretation.

Re: There is no such thing as a “glibc based alpine image”

#112

Post by [deleted] »

p2t2p wrote: post #16
Aissen wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had to battle quite a few portability issues, but everytime it was a program incorrectly assuming some sort of behaviour from glibc and not really musl's fault.

We had to stop using alpine because we have to resolve a DNS name that resolved in a 100 hosts. Musl fails to resolve that because it does not support “upgrade to TCP” and the response does not fit into single UDP packet so it gets truncated, so node fails to resolve the name. And not only node, normal Linux tools as well. And the author says it’s a feature, not a bug so for me it is kinda hard to take that thing ser…

[deleted]

Re: There is no such thing as a “glibc based alpine image”

#113

Post by Spivak »

geocar wrote: post #105
p2t2p wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We had to stop using alpine because we have to resolve a DNS name that resolved in a 100 hosts. Musl fails to resolve that because it does not support “upgrade to TCP” and the response does not fit into single UDP packet so it gets truncated, so node fails to resolve the name. And not only node, normal Linux tools as well. And the author says it’s a feature, not a bug so for me it is kinda hard to take that thing ser…

If someone on my team had built an application and put 100 hosts into a DNS server, I would suggest they upload their hosts file to a webserver someplace. 100 hosts just doesn't do anything useful with most applications using gethostbyname() even in glibc, it's going to be slow, and the bug reports you get are going to be really confusing. Custom applications that are prepared to deal with all 100 hosts will be easie…

Service-Discovery-Over-DNS is typically the use-case. It's used as a compatibility layer for software where you either can't or don't want to integrate the native discovery APIs. Consul is a good example of this. You don't actually have to know how to speak Consul to get automatic service discovery, all you have to do is query a DNS name to get the hosts registered for a particular service.

Re: There is no such thing as a “glibc based alpine image”

#114

Post by MrStonedOne »

dralley wrote: post #106
MrStonedOne wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alpine is free to provide a solution to the problem then. Complaining about the problem isn't going to be productive, and until they publicize a way to convey you are a fork of the alpine project they will have this issue. Welcome to FOSS. xchat solved this with ychat.

> Alpine is free to provide a solution to the problem then. This entire post is about how there isn't a solution to that problem. It's a fundamentally flawed idea.

The solution is to seperate the branding from the idea. There is no way for somebody to suggest in the name of their product that they are a downstream of alpine without using the word alpine. alpine linux can fix this by creating and providing a generic word for their flawed-opinionated-mini-linux whatever

Re: There is no such thing as a “glibc based alpine image”

#115

Post by undecisive »

MrStonedOne wrote: post #88
r1ch wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this comes from them using "Alpine" in the name for something that is not from the Alpine Linux team nor desired / supported by them. Users could be confused into thinking it's something officially supported and clog up official support channels with unrelated issues.

Alpine is free to provide a solution to the problem then. Complaining about the problem isn't going to be productive, and until they publicize a way to convey you are a fork of the alpine project they will have this issue. Welcome to FOSS. xchat solved this with ychat.

> Alpine is free to provide a solution to the problem then.

Alpine is also free to _not_ provide a solution to the problem.

Alpine is free to say "This is not an approved use of our name"

As you point out, the way to convey that you are a fork is to change your name in a non-confusing way, and provide attribution to the original in your readme or licenses.

Re: There is no such thing as a “glibc based alpine image”

#116

Post by nyrikki »

WJW wrote: post #68
p2t2p wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adding to the other responder. Traditionally, in Unix libc is part of the OS. This situation is different in Linux but Linux is an outlier here, if we look at various BSDs they keep libc in the same tree as kernel.

If the outlier has >100x as much market share as the rest of the other unixes combined, is Linux really still the outlier?

Remember "Linux" is just the kernel, it is not an operating system itself.

Alpine or Debian including libC is more equivalent to the BSDs including it.

Re: There is no such thing as a “glibc based alpine image”

#117

Post by arthur2e5 »

captainmuon wrote: post #7

A side-note about glibc: I have only ever had problems with glibc versioned symbols. The only thing they more or less do is to pin an old executable to old library versions, and you can supposedly install a newer version of the library. You then save a little bit of disk space. - It doesn't allow you to install minor versions of the same library at the same time (thats how you end up with all these 1.so, 2.so) - So i…

The “compile in an old version” thing was IIRC more properly done with linker scripts telling the linker to use an older symbol. I think lsb-gcc does it for you — not that the Linux Standard Base is still widely respected at all.

Re: There is no such thing as a “glibc based alpine image”

#118

Post by hvs »

MrStonedOne wrote: post #88
r1ch wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this comes from them using "Alpine" in the name for something that is not from the Alpine Linux team nor desired / supported by them. Users could be confused into thinking it's something officially supported and clog up official support channels with unrelated issues.

Alpine is free to provide a solution to the problem then. Complaining about the problem isn't going to be productive, and until they publicize a way to convey you are a fork of the alpine project they will have this issue. Welcome to FOSS. xchat solved this with ychat.

The post has a section called "Alternatives to alpine-glibc"

Re: There is no such thing as a “glibc based alpine image”

#119

Post by burnished »

MrStonedOne wrote: post #111
burnished wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There Are No Women On The Internet, so they got corrected. It isn't a bad faith interpretation, more like a gentle correction.

"somebody using a generic is really suggesting that women don't exist on the internet" sounds exactly like a bad faith interpretation.

I'm having a hard time here - do you really not see the connection between what I'm saying, what you're saying, and the use of a default masculine pronoun?

Re: There is no such thing as a “glibc based alpine image”

#120

Post by faho »

Karunamon wrote: post #94
faho wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But do you know if alpine does official docker images namespaced as e.g. alpine/? Is "alpine-glibc" an official project and someone just helpfully made the image (or an image including an official glibc package)? Or is this a prerelease? Without a deep knowledge of alpine (or now reading this post) I couldn't answer any of these questions and I'm not sure I wouldn't try to go to alpine for bug reports. I think there'…

The answer to the first question is an obvious yes, and it's obvious to anyone that uses Docker. No deep knowledge required. If you want Alpine, you do FROM alpine:(version). https://hub.docker.com/_/alpine

Ah, that's good to know, thanks!
Post reply on HN