Docker Considered Harmful (2016)
catern.com
Docker Considered Harmful (2016)
1–10 of 188 posts
Re: Docker Considered Harmful (2016)
#2I'm not at all convinced that reams and reams of shell scripts to deploy complex applications is a good idea. But by all means go for it if you think that is the way to go.
Re: Docker Considered Harmful (2016)
#3This article concludes that systemd-nspawn is a more unix-style alternative to Docker. Interestingly enough, this is what rkt uses for its default isolation (stage1).
What Docker did is bring all of the aspects mentioned in this article together into something that could be easily understood and used. Now that the ideas are familiar and there are standards like the Open Container Initiative, I think we'll see more smaller and specialized tools being built and used. Take for example CRI-O, which is Red Hat's container runtime that only targets the execution of Pods for Kubernetes.
Re: Docker Considered Harmful (2016)
#4> I think you could reimplement [some random part of what Docker does] easily yourself with a small shell script and some calls to mount; but I haven't bothered.
Exactly.
Re: Docker Considered Harmful (2016)
#5> I think you could reimplement [some random part of what Docker does] easily yourself with a small shell script and some calls to mount; but I haven't bothered. Exactly.
Bonus round:
> For most purposes, the main interesting thing that Docker containers provide is isolated networking. [...] What else prevents applications from using ports? The firewall that you already have installed on your server. Again, pointless abstraction to address already-solved problems.
Comically missing the point.
Re: Docker Considered Harmful (2016)
#6This feels a bit like "Why use Dropbox when rsync exists?" type of argument. Sure, you can do everything docker does with shell scripts, and you've been able to for decades, but many people didn't, because it was "complicated". There is often a huge amount of value in simplifying things, even if it means losing some of the power and the end result being objectively worse.
Re: Docker Considered Harmful (2016)
#7In theory he's totally right. In practice Docker is bringing all these things in a unified and standard tools — basically bringing such technology to the "masses".
If you can craft your own system, feel free to move forward with that.
Re: Docker Considered Harmful (2016)
#8This article concludes that systemd-nspawn is a more unix-style alternative to Docker. Interestingly enough, this is what rkt uses for its default isolation (stage1). What Docker did is bring all of the aspects mentioned in this article together into something that could be easily understood and used. Now that the ideas are familiar and there are standards like the Open Container Initiative, I think we'll see more sm…
BTW, were these cool systemd features invented after Docker by any chance?
Re: Docker Considered Harmful (2016)
#9This feels similar to the infamous HN Comment about Dropbox.
Re: Docker Considered Harmful (2016)
#10> I think you could reimplement [some random part of what Docker does] easily yourself with a small shell script and some calls to mount; but I haven't bothered. Exactly.
I remember seeing that here actually. Docker in 100 lines of code.