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

21–30 of 118 posts

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

#21

Post by jml78 »

throwaway817472 wrote: post #10
jml78 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Only complaint is that my home network assigns IPv6 addresses and that fucks up external dns lookups for pods in Orbstack.

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

#22

Post by dilyevsky »

mschuster91 wrote: post #2

The 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…

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

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

#24

Post by hackernewds »

wmf wrote: post #16
dcreater wrote: post #12

Very interesting. With how standard containerization has become, we sorely need an FOSS solution

If Docker isn't open enough for you, check out Podman (now with extra CNCF).

how is docker open in any way?

https://i.imgur.com/2F0JmUw.png

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

#25

Post by diggan »

hackernewds wrote: post #24
wmf wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Docker isn't open enough for you, check out Podman (now with extra CNCF).

how is docker open in any way? https://i.imgur.com/2F0JmUw.png

In this way: https://imgur.com/a/PIkm7Eb

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

#27

Post by bhhaskin »

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…

Docker for Mac does run on Linux. Just a striped down lightweight vm. It's why file Io is complete shit. It's a network share.

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

#28

Post by jen20 »

dilyevsky wrote: post #22
mschuster91 wrote: post #2

The 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…

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

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

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

#29

Post by mschuster91 »

bhhaskin wrote: post #27
skissane wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Docker for Mac does run on Linux. Just a striped down lightweight vm. It's why file Io is complete shit. It's a network share.

Use either the cached or delegated options for the volume [1] then even NodeJS becomes decently performant.

[1] https://tkacz.pro/docker-volumes-cached-vs-delegated/

Post reply on HN