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

Bocker: Docker implemented in around 100 lines of Bash (2015)

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 118 posts

Re: Bocker: Docker implemented in around 100 lines of Bash (2015)

#101

Post by dilyevsky »

smt88 wrote: post #33
dilyevsky wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, they should have prioritized building some sort of PaaS solution like CloudRun, Render or Fly so they can sell that to enterprises for $$$. Instead they did half-baked docker swarm which never really worked reliably and then lost ground to k8s rapidly

Docker was a spinoff of an internal tool used to build exactly the type of PaaS you're describing. It was like a better Heroku and I loved it, but they shut it down when they focused on commercializing Docker itself.

That was always weird to me they opted for freemium cli instead of enterprise paas play. Maybe it was just too early

Re: Bocker: Docker implemented in around 100 lines of Bash (2015)

#102

Post by smt88 »

dilyevsky wrote: post #101
smt88 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Docker was a spinoff of an internal tool used to build exactly the type of PaaS you're describing. It was like a better Heroku and I loved it, but they shut it down when they focused on commercializing Docker itself.

That was always weird to me they opted for freemium cli instead of enterprise paas play. Maybe it was just too early

My guess is the margins were really bad for a PaaS. It's expensive to build on top of other people's clouds.

Re: Bocker: Docker implemented in around 100 lines of Bash (2015)

#103

Post by jen20 »

dilyevsky wrote: post #100
jen20 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn’t they buy at least one of these? It was garbage, and no one cared.

dotCloud was actually what Docker came out of. No one cared because they didn’t prioritize it enough to make it good

Orchard was the one I was thinking of.

Re: Bocker: Docker implemented in around 100 lines of Bash (2015)

#104

Post by seabrookmx »

jml78 wrote: post #8
seabrookmx wrote: post #3

Earlier 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.

Why not use Docker CE if you're on Linux?

Re: Bocker: Docker implemented in around 100 lines of Bash (2015)

#105

Post by mst »

hks0 wrote: post #56

I did something (slightly) similar via proot, called Bag [1], which I must have not described as a docker alternative: It has nothing to do with cgroups, and the cli deviates from that of docker's. The backstory: To bypass internet censorship and deep packet inspection, I had written a proxy chain solution masquerading itself as plain html traffic. I needed it constantly running everywhere I went, but I didn't want t…

I managed to coax my 8" tablet turned horizontal to give me about 80x22 at a size I could actually read.

Combine that with a ~10" bluetooth keyboard that fits comfortably in my leather jacket's inside pockets and I get to leave the house without carrying a bag and still sit and write code in the back corner of a handy beer garden.

Turns out to be surprisingly productive as well, probably because there's just enough extra friction to flipping to my usual distractions compared to a laptop that I tend to just take a sip of my beer while continuing to glare at the code instead.

Re: Bocker: Docker implemented in around 100 lines of Bash (2015)

#106

Post by mst »

noufalibrahim wrote: post #88
hks0 wrote: post #56

I did something (slightly) similar via proot, called Bag [1], which I must have not described as a docker alternative: It has nothing to do with cgroups, and the cli deviates from that of docker's. The backstory: To bypass internet censorship and deep packet inspection, I had written a proxy chain solution masquerading itself as plain html traffic. I needed it constantly running everywhere I went, but I didn't want t…

I guess a lot of us had stories like this. I needed to package a bunch of things into a single environment where a VM was unsuitable. I cooked up something using chroot, deb-bootstrap and make an installer using makeself. It created a mini debian inside /opt which held the software and all the dependencies I needed (mysql etc.). Worked pretty well and the company I made this for used it till they got acquired in 2016…

Now I'm kinda tempted to have a go at this using distroless, probably by building a container using the already existing tools and then slurping the contents back out of it to turn into a chroot.

Re: Bocker: Docker implemented in around 100 lines of Bash (2015)

#107

Post by mst »

ajross wrote: post #91
UK-Al05 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just a learning tool to see how docker works. Docker is just a combination of kernel tech that already exists. Namespaces, cgroups, and union file systems and probably few others.

Exactly. "Docker" is boring, everyone uses it, everyone knows it, no one really wants to rewrite it (on Linux) except for parochial infighting or religious license reasons. But Linux containers [1] are actually fascinating stuff, really powerful, and (even for the Docker experts) poorly understood. The point of Bocker isn't "see how easy it is to rewrite Docker" it's "See how simple and powerful the container ecosyst…

I like doing similar tricks with zfs snapshots for containers on linux and jails on fBSD.

(this is not intended to start a filesystem argument, I'm doing it with zfs because I already know zfs and it's available on both of the OSen I care about; if you already know btrfs and are only running things that support it, clearly you should use that for the exact same reasons ;)

Re: Bocker: Docker implemented in around 100 lines of Bash (2015)

#108

Post by mst »

sellmesoap wrote: post #61

A brother from another mother: https://bastillebsd.org/ Bastille manages jails using shell with many of the same constructs you'd find in docker. I like it over other jail management software in BSD because it has so few dependencies.

I'm also quite impressed by cbsd - shttps://www.bsdstore.ru/en/about.html - though that's more of a 'maximum overkill' solution in spite of being a CLI/TUI driven tool.

Currently I'm going through a phase of building and managing jails with just the stuff in FreeBSD base, but that's entirely intended to only be a phase - it'll last until I have the way all of it fits together burned into my brain well enough to be confident debugging it, and then I'll stop banging rocks together and go back to using higher level tools like a sensible person :D

Re: Bocker: Docker implemented in around 100 lines of Bash (2015)

#109

Post by mst »

smt88 wrote: post #102
dilyevsky wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was always weird to me they opted for freemium cli instead of enterprise paas play. Maybe it was just too early

My guess is the margins were really bad for a PaaS. It's expensive to build on top of other people's clouds.

There's also the issue that building an effective enterprise sales organisation is a whole Thing and if you believe you can achieve profitability via a different path then the temptation to file the enterprise approach under "I have no idea how to do this and also I would rather not" is probably pretty strong.

(this is in no way a comment about what the right decision would have been, only musing on an additional reason the decision might have gone the way it did)

Re: Bocker: Docker implemented in around 100 lines of Bash (2015)

#110

Post by nucleardog »

skissane wrote: post #9
magic_hamster wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

The reason Docker Desktop for Mac looks like you're running Docker on Linux is because... you are. It's running docker in a linux VM for you.

Similar issues in our environment, and I managed to swap everything over to Rancher Desktop fairly seamlessly as it does the exact same thing. It runs a Linux VM and if you select the "dockerd (moby)" container engine it runs a copy of docker inside of it. So you get a socket with the same docker API implemented... because it's running actual docker. docker compose and everything else work as expected.

The reason we switched is that Rancher Desktop, along with providing a convenient way to run docker, also includes a full k3s install in that same VM. So we can work on unifying some of our stack/configs on kubernetes rather than docker for local and kubernetes for everywhere else. It also opens up using upstream helm charts and things when a developer wants to deploy and try something locally.

It's also free. Open source and backed by SUSE, who also develops and maintains the k3s distribution among other stuff in this space.

Post reply on HN