Bocker: Docker implemented in around 100 lines of Bash (2015)
1–10 of 118 posts
Re: Bocker: Docker implemented in around 100 lines of Bash (2015)
#2The fact how simple it is to re-implement a large part of Docker because all it fundamentally is a bit of glue code to the kernel is the biggest problem Docker-the-company faced and still faces.
Where Docker adds real value is not (just) Docker Hub but Docker for Windows and Mac. The integrations offer a vastly superior experience than messing around with VirtualBox and Vagrant by hand (been there, done that) to achieve running Docker on one's development machine.
Re: Bocker: Docker implemented in around 100 lines of Bash (2015)
#3The fact how simple it is to re-implement a large part of Docker because all it fundamentally is a bit of glue code to the kernel is the biggest problem Docker-the-company faced and still faces. Where Docker adds real value is not (just) Docker Hub but Docker for Windows and Mac. The integrations offer a vastly superior experience than messing around with VirtualBox and Vagrant by hand (been there, done that) to achi…
Rancher desktop is also a viable option and free. Many including my work moved to it after Docker's new licensing kicked in.
IMO the real magic of Docker was the Docker/OCI image format. It's a brilliant way to perform caching and distribute container images, and it's really what still differentiates the workflow from "full" VM's.
Re: Bocker: Docker implemented in around 100 lines of Bash (2015)
#4The fact how simple it is to re-implement a large part of Docker because all it fundamentally is a bit of glue code to the kernel is the biggest problem Docker-the-company faced and still faces. Where Docker adds real value is not (just) Docker Hub but Docker for Windows and Mac. The integrations offer a vastly superior experience than messing around with VirtualBox and Vagrant by hand (been there, done that) to achi…
But Rancher Desktop does the same too (and is also open source).
Re: Bocker: Docker implemented in around 100 lines of Bash (2015)
#5The fact how simple it is to re-implement a large part of Docker because all it fundamentally is a bit of glue code to the kernel is the biggest problem Docker-the-company faced and still faces. Where Docker adds real value is not (just) Docker Hub but Docker for Windows and Mac. The integrations offer a vastly superior experience than messing around with VirtualBox and Vagrant by hand (been there, done that) to achi…
Docker Desktop on Mac is a handicapped, underprivileged mess. Docker cli for Mac with Colima is still underprivileged, but at least you can skip the bs license and Docker's gui. On Windows you can at least use Docker on WSL which works great. Why use Docker Desktop is beyond me.
Re: Bocker: Docker implemented in around 100 lines of Bash (2015)
#6The fact how simple it is to re-implement a large part of Docker because all it fundamentally is a bit of glue code to the kernel is the biggest problem Docker-the-company faced and still faces. Where Docker adds real value is not (just) Docker Hub but Docker for Windows and Mac. The integrations offer a vastly superior experience than messing around with VirtualBox and Vagrant by hand (been there, done that) to achi…
I just use colima on macos, its a far better experience. Much lighter weight
Re: Bocker: Docker implemented in around 100 lines of Bash (2015)
#7The fact how simple it is to re-implement a large part of Docker because all it fundamentally is a bit of glue code to the kernel is the biggest problem Docker-the-company faced and still faces. Where Docker adds real value is not (just) Docker Hub but Docker for Windows and Mac. The integrations offer a vastly superior experience than messing around with VirtualBox and Vagrant by hand (been there, done that) to achi…
Docker for Windows and Mac are both bloated pieces of software, outperformed by Rancher Desktop and Orbstack.
Docker's only real innovation was the OCI format, which it had to give away for it to become an industry standard, and now doesn't own.
Re: Bocker: Docker implemented in around 100 lines of Bash (2015)
#8The fact how simple it is to re-implement a large part of Docker because all it fundamentally is a bit of glue code to the kernel is the biggest problem Docker-the-company faced and still faces. Where Docker adds real value is not (just) Docker Hub but Docker for Windows and Mac. The integrations offer a vastly superior experience than messing around with VirtualBox and Vagrant by hand (been there, done that) to achi…
Rancher desktop is also a viable option and free. Many including my work moved to it after Docker's new licensing kicked in. IMO the real magic of Docker was the Docker/OCI image format. It's a brilliant way to perform caching and distribute container images, and it's really what still differentiates the workflow from "full" VM's.
My main dev machine is Linux so I use Rancher Desktop but I also have a MacBook Pro m1 machine. Orbstack is so much better than rancher and docker desktop. I know they are a small company but hell if their product isn’t significantly more efficient and better.
Re: Bocker: Docker implemented in around 100 lines of Bash (2015)
#9The fact how simple it is to re-implement a large part of Docker because all it fundamentally is a bit of glue code to the kernel is the biggest problem Docker-the-company faced and still faces. Where Docker adds real value is not (just) Docker Hub but Docker for Windows and Mac. The integrations offer a vastly superior experience than messing around with VirtualBox and Vagrant by hand (been there, done that) to achi…
Docker Desktop on Mac is a handicapped, underprivileged mess. Docker cli for Mac with Colima is still underprivileged, but at least you can skip the bs license and Docker's gui. On Windows you can at least use Docker on WSL which works great. Why use Docker Desktop is beyond me.
> Why use Docker Desktop is beyond me.
I lived through a failed attempt to migrate from Docker Desktop for Mac to an open source alternative (minikube+portainer, IIRC). A lot of test scripts developers relied on – to run parts of the integration test suite on their laptops for debugging – broke, because Docker Desktop for Mac went to a lot of effort to make macOS look like you were running Docker on Linux, whereas the open source replacement wasn't as seamless. Some of these test scripts contained Java code directly talking to the Docker daemon over its Unix domain socket, so need the same API implemented. Many other scripts made heavy use of the Docker CLI. After spending a lot of time on it, it was decided to just go back to Docker Desktop for Mac. The failed migration had resulted in highly paid engineers spending time pulling their hair out trying to get test scripts to work instead of actually fixing bugs and delivering new features.
Now, that was 2+ years ago now, and maybe the open source alternatives have caught up since, or maybe we picked the wrong one or made some other mistake. But I'm not rushing to try it again.
Re: Bocker: Docker implemented in around 100 lines of Bash (2015)
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rancher desktop is also a viable option and free. Many including my work moved to it after Docker's new licensing kicked in. IMO the real magic of Docker was the Docker/OCI image format. It's a brilliant way to perform caching and distribute container images, and it's really what still differentiates the workflow from "full" VM's.
My main dev machine is Linux so I use Rancher Desktop but I also have a MacBook Pro m1 machine. Orbstack is so much better than rancher and docker desktop. I know they are a small company but hell if their product isn’t significantly more efficient and better.
Completely agree. I moved from docker desktop to rancher after an update blew away my kubernetes cluster, and then from Rancher to Orbstack due to a number of bugs that were crashing the underlying VM. Orbstack has been rock solid (aside from one annoying networking issue), and it uses significantly less battery. They’ve done a fantastic job.