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

Why doesn’t anyone weep for Docker?

techrepublic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 248 posts

Re: Why doesn’t anyone weep for Docker?

#111

Post by _jwjg »

movedx wrote: post #105
dsr_ wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. None of the things you mentioned are DevOps. DevOps is two things: 1. Applying the methods of modern software development (version control, automation, DSLs...) to operations (provisioning, config, deployment, monitoring, backups...). 2. Reducing silo barriers between devs and ops groups so that everyone is working together as a team, rather than blaming each other for poor communication and the resulting messe…

At last, someone who gets it. Absolutely nailed it. Great answer. I never log into my HN account anymore, but for this response I just had to say: yes. Well said. When you boil the Cloud, DevOps, CloudOps, SecOps, *Ops, CI, CD, Containers, VMs, and all the other technologies we've devised over the past ten years, you always end up at the basic building blocks. You eventually come to the conclusion that all we're real…

I am a developer, who also dealt with ops in a small business context. I agree with Ansible striking a good balance between prior experience and the future of automating server configuration.

I did a write-up on how I used it on my blog: [link redacted]

The workflow worked really well, provisioning Vagrant servers in staging and Digital Ocean droplets in production.

Re: Why doesn’t anyone weep for Docker?

#112

Post by moksly »

ChrisCinelli wrote: post #98
moksly wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as a small developer Do you need kubernetes? I know the hype cycle is mad for copying big tech, but if stackoverflow can operate on a couple of IIS instances I’d argue that you almost never need kubernetes.

People jump on bandwagons. Ten years ago you started with PHP + memcache + MySQL running on just a physical box running linux. No Docker or Kubernetes. No virtual machine for what it is worth. Then you split it in multiple PHP frontends with a load balancer or MySQL master and slaves as the traffic demanded it. I think a lot of systems these days are over-engineered and over-paid from day one. It may cost you 10-20 t…

I don’t think kubernetes is nice because I’ve seen more than one small team throw a lot of resources at it and fail.

I’m not attacking docker, however, I can see why you would want containers. We still haven’t found an efficient usage for them at my place, but we never need to spin up more than one instance of our software. I think docker can sometimes be a way to cheat unsafe software around operations, but that’s more of an anti-pattern than an issue with docker.

Then again, I’m probably old and grumpy, but that sometimes has the advantage of not adopting techs before they are easy to use.

Re: Why doesn’t anyone weep for Docker?

#113

Post by high_5 »

movedx wrote: post #105
dsr_ wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. None of the things you mentioned are DevOps. DevOps is two things: 1. Applying the methods of modern software development (version control, automation, DSLs...) to operations (provisioning, config, deployment, monitoring, backups...). 2. Reducing silo barriers between devs and ops groups so that everyone is working together as a team, rather than blaming each other for poor communication and the resulting messe…

At last, someone who gets it. Absolutely nailed it. Great answer. I never log into my HN account anymore, but for this response I just had to say: yes. Well said. When you boil the Cloud, DevOps, CloudOps, SecOps, *Ops, CI, CD, Containers, VMs, and all the other technologies we've devised over the past ten years, you always end up at the basic building blocks. You eventually come to the conclusion that all we're real…

I agree with _dsr, he really nailed it. As for GitLab I agree they got the balance right except that it feels quite Kubernetes centric.

Re: Why doesn’t anyone weep for Docker?

#114

Post by alias_neo »

My experience agrees with this.

I'm a huge fan of Docker, I've actively taken part since the early days, attending meetups and using it actively day to day.

Unfortunately, when I brought several issues to GitHub, or +1'd other people's issues that were affecting the usability within our company, the attitude was very much "f* you and your problems" because Docker want things to be one way and that's how it'll be.

There were issues raised 4+ years ago and are still open, for solutions to problems that would have mooted a need for us to use something like K8s (which doesn't work anyway for our requirements).

I believe Docker locking the community out of valuable features had also done harm and (possibly) failed to be the monitiser they'd hoped for.

After so long, I no longer go to Docker to solve problems that could be solved in Docker (secrets anyone? without the "hacks"), and just look towards the other tools solving the problems.

I'll continue to use Docker, but I don't consider it a friend.

Re: Why doesn’t anyone weep for Docker?

#115

Post by notyourday »

For the same reason that no one weeps for a company that markets hammers even if it invented a new way to hold a hammer and raised lots of money because of it. We do not care about hammers, we just use them when we need to hit something. Our customers do not care about hammers either, they care about the result that we deliver.

Re: Why doesn’t anyone weep for Docker?

#116

Post by de_watcher »

cuspycode wrote: post #79
de_watcher wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LXC feels more UNIXy. Docker command line tools and formats feel awkward in that regard (which helped to popularize the thing by pushing this one specific view).

I agree. I had some VMs that I wanted to turn into containers. With LXC it was a breeze, and the result is very much like a "lightweight VM". Docker seems more like putting a single application process in a container, which is a very different thing. And if I want to do that, I'll seriously consider running the application in a unikernel (e.g. OSv) instead.

By the way, the lightweight VM project is currently the LXD by Ubuntu/Canonical.

Re: Why doesn’t anyone weep for Docker?

#117

Post by wolco »

i386 wrote: post #95

In my experience having worked at two developer tools companies where we wanted to partner and co-market products, Docker would never pick up the phone. There was definitely a “we don’t need you attitude” whenever I approached them and I had the same experience repeated to me by friends at other companies trying to do the same thing.

This is the core reason why they are where they are.

They acted like you were bothering them and in fairness you probably were. Even today they wouldn't pick up.

When you start believing the hype reality becomes distorted.

Re: Why doesn’t anyone weep for Docker?

#118

Post by notyourday »

Dowwie wrote: post #74
de_watcher wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Docker and Kubernetes are on completely different layers. You can't do those comparisons. Kubernetes is like an operating system, Docker is like a format for the executable files. There is no problem with servers. We're running Kubernetes in production on a single Linux machine, essentially using Kubernetes as an alternative OS.

Kubernetes seems to be intended for large, complex environments but yours seems to not meet that category. What have you gained by using it?

Like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2F-DItXtZs but for devops.

Re: Why doesn’t anyone weep for Docker?

#120

Post by shaklee3 »

kjgkjhfkjf wrote: post #9

Google doesn't actually use Kubernetes much, so the "operation hardened internally" argument isn't valid.

Perhaps @thockin can comment since this was on his Twitter some time ago, but I believe Google is starting to use it more and more internally. He would know, since he's been involved since the beginning.
Post reply on HN