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

I ditched Docker for Podman

codesmash.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 670 posts

Re: I ditched Docker for Podman

#141

Post by seemaze »

Tajnymag wrote: post #11

I've wanted to migrate multiple times. Unfortunately, it failed on multiple places. Firstly, podman had a much worse performance compared to docker on my small cloud vps. Can't really go into details though. Secondly, the development ecosystem isn't really fully there yet. Many tools utilizing Docker via its socket, fail to work reliably with podman. Either because the API differs or because of permission limitations…

Thats funny, podman had better performance and less resource usage on my resource constrained system. I chalked it up to crun vs runc, though both docker and podman both support configuring alternate runtimes. Plus no deamon..

Re: I ditched Docker for Podman

#142

Post by croon »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #101
linuxftw wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. I run docker in WSL. I also do 100% of my development in WSL (for work, anyway). Windows is basically just my web browser.

Ironic username. As a die hard, WSL aint bad though. I just can't deal with an OS that automatically quarantines bittorrent clients, decides to override local administrator policies via windows updates and pops up ad notifications.

+1

I use WSL for work because we have no linux client options. It's generally fine, but both forced windows update reboots as well as seemingly random wsl reboots (assuming because of some component update?) can really bite you if you're in the middle of something.

Re: I ditched Docker for Podman

#143

Post by k4rli »

nickjj wrote: post #46
t43562 wrote: post #21

To provide 1 contrary opinion to all the others saying they have a problem: Podman rocks for me! I find docker hard to use and full of pitfalls and podman isn't any worse. On the plus side, any company I work for doesn't have to worry about licences. Win win!

> On the plus side, any company I work for doesn't have to worry about licences. Win win! Was this a deal breaker for any company? I ask because the Docker Desktop paid license requirement is quite reasonable. If you have less than 250 employees and make less than $10 million in annual revenue it's free. If you have a dev team of 10 people and are extremely profitable to where you need licenses you'd end up paying $9…

Docker Desktop is also (imo) useless and helps be ignorant.

Most Mac users I see using it struggle to see the difference between "image" and "container". Complete lack of understanding.

All the same stuff can easily be done from cli.

Re: I ditched Docker for Podman

#144

Post by maigret »

devjab wrote: post #107
akerl_ wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn’t generally the cost, it’s the complexity. You end up having to track who has it installed. Hired 5 more people this week? How many of them will want docker desktop? Oh, we’ve maxed the licenses we bought? Time to re-open the procurement process and amend the purchase order.

> You end up having to track who has it installed. Hired 5 more people this week? How many of them will want docker desktop? Oh, we’ve maxed the licenses we bought? Time to re-open the procurement process and amend the purchase order. I don't quite get this argument. How is that different from any piece of software that an employee will want in any sort of enterprise setting? From an IT operations perspective it is t…

> How is that different from any piece of software that an employee will want in any sort of enterprise setting?

Open source is different in exactly that, no procurement.

Finance makes procurement annoying so people are not motivated to go through it.

Re: I ditched Docker for Podman

#145

Post by j45 »

k4rli wrote: post #143
nickjj wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the plus side, any company I work for doesn't have to worry about licences. Win win! Was this a deal breaker for any company? I ask because the Docker Desktop paid license requirement is quite reasonable. If you have less than 250 employees and make less than $10 million in annual revenue it's free. If you have a dev team of 10 people and are extremely profitable to where you need licenses you'd end up paying $9…

Docker Desktop is also (imo) useless and helps be ignorant. Most Mac users I see using it struggle to see the difference between "image" and "container". Complete lack of understanding. All the same stuff can easily be done from cli.

Not everyone uses software the same way.

Not everyone becomes a beginner to using software the same way or the one way we see.

Re: I ditched Docker for Podman

#146

Post by stronglikedan »

nickjj wrote: post #67
akerl_ wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn’t generally the cost, it’s the complexity. You end up having to track who has it installed. Hired 5 more people this week? How many of them will want docker desktop? Oh, we’ve maxed the licenses we bought? Time to re-open the procurement process and amend the purchase order.

A large company who is buying licenses for tools has to deal with this for many different things. Docker is not unique here. An IT department for a company of that size should have ironed out workflows and automated ways to keep tabs on who has what and who needs what. They may also be under various compliance requirements that expect due diligence to happen every quarter to make sure everything is legit from a licen…

Or just use Podman and don't worry about licenses, since it's just as good but sooo much easier.

Re: I ditched Docker for Podman

#147

Post by smokel »

nickjj wrote: post #46
t43562 wrote: post #21

To provide 1 contrary opinion to all the others saying they have a problem: Podman rocks for me! I find docker hard to use and full of pitfalls and podman isn't any worse. On the plus side, any company I work for doesn't have to worry about licences. Win win!

> On the plus side, any company I work for doesn't have to worry about licences. Win win! Was this a deal breaker for any company? I ask because the Docker Desktop paid license requirement is quite reasonable. If you have less than 250 employees and make less than $10 million in annual revenue it's free. If you have a dev team of 10 people and are extremely profitable to where you need licenses you'd end up paying $9…

Reading through the comments here, it looks like there is an opportunity for a startup to streamline software licensing. Just a free tip.

Re: I ditched Docker for Podman

#150

Post by akerl_ »

devjab wrote: post #107
akerl_ wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn’t generally the cost, it’s the complexity. You end up having to track who has it installed. Hired 5 more people this week? How many of them will want docker desktop? Oh, we’ve maxed the licenses we bought? Time to re-open the procurement process and amend the purchase order.

> You end up having to track who has it installed. Hired 5 more people this week? How many of them will want docker desktop? Oh, we’ve maxed the licenses we bought? Time to re-open the procurement process and amend the purchase order. I don't quite get this argument. How is that different from any piece of software that an employee will want in any sort of enterprise setting? From an IT operations perspective it is t…

I touched on this in my parallel reply, but to expand on it:

The usual way that procurement is handled, for the sake of everybody's sanity, is to sign a flat-rate / tiered contract, often with some kind of true-up window. That way the team that's trying to buy software licenses doesn't have their invoices swinging up/down every time headcount or usage patterns shifts, and they don't have to go back to the well every time they need more seats.

This is a reasonably well-oiled machine, but it does take fuel: setting up a new enterprise agreement like that takes humans and time, both of which are not free. So companies are incentivized to be selective in when they do it. If there's an option that requires negotiating a license deal, and an option that does not, there's decent inertia towards the latter.

All of which is a long way to say: many large enterprises are "good" at knowing how many of their endpoints are running what software, either by making getting software a paperwork process or by tracking with some kind of endpoint management (though it's noteworthy that there are also large enterprises that suck at endpoint management and have no clue what's running in their fleet). The "hard" part (where "hard" means "requires the business to expend energy they'd rather not) is getting a deal that doesn't involve the license seat counter / invoice details having to flex for each individual.

Post reply on HN