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

Docker - the Linux container runtime

docker.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 209 posts

Re: Docker - the Linux container runtime

#131

Post by scarmig »

asadjb wrote: post #4

I'm not familiar with any of the technologies used in this. Anybody care to comment on how strong the isolations would be security wise, compared to normal virtualization? If the security is almost at par and the isolation is good enough that one bad process can't bring the whole system down, might this be a good alternative to virtualization, since I imagine it would definitely use less resources.

Back in January I got a new laptop, installed Arch on it, got it all nicely set up. And I decided it was high time to start playing with LXC because container virtualization seems extremely promising to me. Created an Ubuntu container, seemed to work fine, and then used lxc-destroy, which took some time.

It destroyed my entire file system. I have no clue how the hell it happened--it floors me that something like that would be possible--and I suspect it's probably simply the result of a newbie like myself somehow misusing userspace tools. But it was enough to turn me off of it for the time being.

Re: Docker - the Linux container runtime

#133

Post by NateDad »

shykes wrote: post #118
NateDad wrote: post #115

Not to be a stick in the mud, but you're using a copyrighted image as your logo without any attribution or acknowledgement of the original owner of the copyright (the Lego Group). You should probably fix that.

You're right! We put it up there when it was an internal project, it's probably time to take care of that. Taking it down until we found a correct way to do it. I'm a copyright noob: would simply acknowledging the copyright owner be enough and fall under fair use, or should we not use it unless we get written permission?

I am not a copyright expert, however I am familiar with the Lego Group (the company that produces Lego toys) ... the set is pretty old (1986), which means they're not worried about making money off it. If you just stick a disclaimer after it that it's copyright 1986 the Lego Group, that's probably fine, especially since this looks to be an open source project, so you're not going to be charging people for something with their picture on it.

This page has what is very likely the original image: http://www.peeron.com/scans/7823-1/ Peeron.com has special permission directly from Lego to display the images, so if you wanted to be extra careful you could email dan@peeron.com and ask for permission to deep link to their picture (they'd probably say yes, the admin is a linux geek too). But honestly, a simple copyright disclaimer is probably fine. Lego won't reach out and swat you even if they do decide they don't like it, they'll just ask you to take it down.

Re: Docker - the Linux container runtime

#135

Post by bbrunner »

shykes wrote: post #30

Wow! Did not expect this to show up on HN before actual release! (I work at dotCloud). We're still polishing a few rough edges. If you want early access add your github ID to this thread and we'll add you right away!

this looks awesome. would love to check it out.

github: brianbrunner

Re: Docker - the Linux container runtime

#137

Post by philjr »

shykes wrote: post #30

Wow! Did not expect this to show up on HN before actual release! (I work at dotCloud). We're still polishing a few rough edges. If you want early access add your github ID to this thread and we'll add you right away!

github: pjr

looked at the pycon demo ... looks awesome!

Re: Docker - the Linux container runtime

#140

Post by derefr »

peterwwillis wrote: post #110
derefr wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, this is a good first step in the "free market" standardization process, though: get a public implementation out of what you would imagine standard-conformance to look like. Then, let the other guys (e.g. Heroku) get out their competing implementations. Then, find the similarities, resolve the differences, and write it down. Now you've got a standard.

In practice that does not work. Things get broken, people end up having to support 20 edge cases to use this "universal", "standardized" thing. Depends on the implementation, though.

"HTML 1.0" was the particular standard I had in mind. I guess I'm too used to coding multiplatform Javascript, but "end[ing] up having to support 20 edge cases to use this 'universal', 'standardized' thing" sounds like success in my books--in that you now have a (painfully) interoperating ecosystem, where before you had none. And it all gradually gets smoothed out as the spec evolves over the years, until you can't really tell the difference from a BDUF spec.
Post reply on HN