Docker is a dangerous gamble which we will regret (2018) • Hacker News Board

Re: Docker is a dangerous gamble which we will regret (2018)

#131

Post by EamonnMR » Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 10:27 PM UTC

clarry wrote: post #14

EamonnMR wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had this problem too when my team first adopted docker, but you can use a conventional debugger if you run your container interactively (with -i.)

Yea, first you just have to get your debugger (and maybe the rest of your toolchain) installed in the container, along with your source code.. and then you run into things like crazy wonky terminal support. Sucks if you want to use a more advanced debugger interface, because you're not going to install that in the container.

In my case it was just Python using `pdb` so it wasn't so bad. Though it does get extremely janky if you, say, run a server and hit it with multiple requests that all hit a breakpoint... you end up with your input being sloshed across multiple debug sessions!

Re: Docker is a dangerous gamble which we will regret (2018)

#132

Post by vonseel » Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 7:17 PM UTC

rossdavidh wrote: post #20

If I use Docker, I get to put "Docker" on my resume for the next job; if I use bash scripts I don't. If I use React, I get to put "React" on my resume; if I use vanilla JS I don't. If I use Kubernetes, I get to put "Kubernetes" on my resume. If I use AWS, I get to put that on my resume, if I just spin up a Linux instance using Linode or etc, I don't Of course, I would have to convince my boss to let me do all of thes…

I’m actually looking for a job and this has come up more than once.

I agree with you for the most part.

Docker isn’t all that difficult to use and I don’t even see why they bother asking. I just laugh and tell them, yeah, I know docker, along with being quite proficient in Linux in general and other deployment technologies. I don’t see the point of asking developers if they know docker. If you can learn to code, you can learn the basics of docker in 15 minutes.

React and frameworks are more specific and I can see why asking about those for developer roles is more appropriate.

AWS is so damn big at this point that I don’t know what they are really asking by just saying “AWS”. Sure, I know about the core AWS stuff, but I’m not proficient in really specific AWS CloudFormation templates or AWS IAM policies and stuff. And I’m not sure most developers outside of devops should be responsible for such a thing. For day-to-day software engineering, I shouldn’t need to touch the servers - that should be handled by a CI process and/or devops persons.

Re: Docker is a dangerous gamble which we will regret (2018)

#133

Post by ex_amazon_sde » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 6:05 PM UTC

notacoward wrote: post #40

ex_amazon_sde wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon (and other FAANGs) use OS packages and do not use Docker nor Kubernetes or anything with all that complexity. This is a deliberate choice, at least in Amazon.

Maybe you know how it is at Amazon, but your statement is definitely not true for two other FAANGs. It's well known that Kubernetes is the open-source version of tools that already existed within Google, and Kubernetes itself is part of some public-facing products. I work at Facebook, and we most definitely do have our own equivalent of Kubernetes. It's awful in all of the same ways IMO. We also build fat binaries (a…

I'm familiar with different implementation in FAANGs. (I cannot disclose the names.) They are hardly as bloated and vulnerable as Docker+Kubernetes.

> It's awful in all of the same ways IMO.

> So one point for your claim, two against.

It's awful but at the same time it's a claim against... interesting.

Re: Docker is a dangerous gamble which we will regret (2018)

#134

Post by notacoward » Sat, Feb 01, 2020, 2:21 AM UTC

ex_amazon_sde wrote: post #133

notacoward wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you know how it is at Amazon, but your statement is definitely not true for two other FAANGs. It's well known that Kubernetes is the open-source version of tools that already existed within Google, and Kubernetes itself is part of some public-facing products. I work at Facebook, and we most definitely do have our own equivalent of Kubernetes. It's awful in all of the same ways IMO. We also build fat binaries (a…

I'm familiar with different implementation in FAANGs. (I cannot disclose the names.) They are hardly as bloated and vulnerable as Docker+Kubernetes. > It's awful in all of the same ways IMO. > So one point for your claim, two against. It's awful but at the same time it's a claim against... interesting.

That's not the least bit inconsistent. You claimed that FAANGs do not run anything with the complexity of Docker or Kubernetes. The best thing I can say about that claim is that your information is clearly outdated. Some might call it a lie. Facebook and Google, at least, do use something with equivalent complexity, and the very thing that makes them awful is also the thing that refutes your claim. Don't claim to speak for all companies when you clearly don't know anything about more than one.