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

Docker Compose Isn't Enough

blog.tealok.tech

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–208 of 208 posts

Re: Docker Compose Isn't Enough

#201

Post by brianuol »

halis wrote: post #197
forrestthewoods wrote: post #39

Containers were a mistake. This is all radically more complicated than it needs to be. Running a computer program is not that complicated.

Docker can be a huge pain I agree. But as a senior dev that’s had half their career before docker and half after docker, it’s totally worth it and lets you avoid much worse pain.

As a guy with 25 years in industry I have to agree containers are way too complicated. The abstraction mirrors too closely the real world and so now we literally "rack and stack" in yaml. Every port, every dependency, trade your handful of cat6e for notepad.

I've heard it said the greatest trick ever pulled was the devil convincing mankind he didn't exist.

The second greatest trick, apparently, was Google convincing the world to adopt a solution to a problem few other than Google actually have.

Re: Docker Compose Isn't Enough

#202

Post by enema_combatabt »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #39

Containers were a mistake. This is all radically more complicated than it needs to be. Running a computer program is not that complicated.

Nah fams. It's turtles all the way down. 40 years in IT, and nothing old is new. Containers arent fucking new. Virt capabilities have been in most monolithic kernels since the 80's. VMWare decided to kick it off in the 80x86 space, and from there, a physical host is the root of all virtualization, regardless of hypervisor type or ephemeral system segmentation. It's like, the Devil you know, or the Devil you don't.

Re: Docker Compose Isn't Enough

#203

Post by sam0x17 »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #39

Containers were a mistake. This is all radically more complicated than it needs to be. Running a computer program is not that complicated.

I do think something like serverless functions is the better abstraction, but there is no open format I am aware of that you can use to bring these across providers (other than arguably serverless I suppose), and generally there has been little support/interest for long/infinite running serverless functions, making some applications problematic.

Re: Docker Compose Isn't Enough

#204

Post by jedberg »

sam0x17 wrote: post #203
forrestthewoods wrote: post #39

Containers were a mistake. This is all radically more complicated than it needs to be. Running a computer program is not that complicated.

I do think something like serverless functions is the better abstraction, but there is no open format I am aware of that you can use to bring these across providers (other than arguably serverless I suppose), and generally there has been little support/interest for long/infinite running serverless functions, making some applications problematic.

Disclaimer: I work for DBOS. But the reason I took the job is because I think we are solving a lot of the problems that make people choose containers over serverless.

We have an open source library called Transact[0] that you can run anywhere, including locally, and get durable serverless with state (and even some observability). Then you can deploy it to our cloud[1] and get reliability, scalability, more observability, and a time travel debugger.

[0] https://github.com/dbos-inc/dbos-transact-py

[1] https://docs.dbos.dev

Re: Docker Compose Isn't Enough

#205

Post by dlainhart »

shiroiushi wrote: post #179
forrestthewoods wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because of less HD space and much more importantly, less memory used for shared libraries Literally not in the Top 1000 problems for modern software. > Windows went through a lot of similar problems, and had to go to great lengths to deal with it. Not really. A 20 year old piece of windows software prettt much “just works”. Meanwhile it’s nigh impossible to compile a piece of Linux software that runs across every m…

>A 20 year old piece of windows software prettt much “just works” No, it only works because Windows basically included something much like WINE (they call it WoW) in Windows, so old pieces of software aren't running on the modern libraries. >it’s nigh impossible to compile a piece of Linux software that runs across every major distro in active use. Sure you can, with Docker. It's effectively doing the same thing Wind…

Nope, that's not how WoW works. It might feel close enough for you but if that's the case then you aren't careful enough with the analogies you make. Think harder, aim for more clarity.

Re: Docker Compose Isn't Enough

#206

Post by dlainhart »

Capricorn2481 wrote: post #194
forrestthewoods wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Create 15 pex files. Or possibly 15 PyInstaller executables. Then simply run them like normal programs.

Ah yes let's not use bad abstractions like docker, let's use pyinstaller...

Why would you load an entire userspace environment just to manage a Python package's Python dependencies? Seems a little heavy.

Re: Docker Compose Isn't Enough

#207

Post by sam0x17 »

jedberg wrote: post #204
sam0x17 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think something like serverless functions is the better abstraction, but there is no open format I am aware of that you can use to bring these across providers (other than arguably serverless I suppose), and generally there has been little support/interest for long/infinite running serverless functions, making some applications problematic.

Disclaimer: I work for DBOS. But the reason I took the job is because I think we are solving a lot of the problems that make people choose containers over serverless. We have an open source library called Transact[0] that you can run anywhere, including locally, and get durable serverless with state (and even some observability). Then you can deploy it to our cloud[1] and get reliability, scalability, more observabil…

awesome, will check it out!
Post reply on HN