Docker releases version 0.2.0 • Hacker News Board

Re: Docker releases version 0.2.0

#31

Post by shykes » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 8:29 AM UTC

pepijndevos wrote: post #30

I've been thinking about "dockerizing" my application. How do I "get in touch" about that? https://github.com/dotcloud/docker/wiki/Docker-0.2.0-release...

You can join the irc channel, or send a message on the google group, or create an issue on github to describe your use case and ask for advice, or even just email me at solomon@dotcloud.com. Or you if you happen to be in San Francisco on May 2nd, you can drop by the dotCloud HQ for the Docker hack day.

Re: Docker releases version 0.2.0

#32

Post by StavrosK » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 10:07 AM UTC

teraflop wrote: post #29

StavrosK wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, it wasn't a kernel panic, thankfully :) I closed the window now, but, after downloading the image, I got some errors like "improper file permissions" and "bsdtar exiting". Sorry I can't provide the exact errors, but if I run it it has to download the entire thing again.

Are you using btrfs, by any chance? Docker currently doesn't support it: https://github.com/dotcloud/docker/issues/339

That'd be it! Thanks, although it's too bad I can't use docker.

Re: Docker releases version 0.2.0

#33

Post by zokier » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 10:33 AM UTC

yebyen wrote: post #3

steeve wrote: post #2

"you can now choose between Debian, Ubuntu, Centos, Gentoo, Arch Linux and Busybox as the base layer for building your containers." Now this is great. Using this instead of VMs is a win.

I will be pleased when Exherbo is added to the list. (Although 90% of the fun I had with exherbo was struggling to get the systemd in place, and that's nullified in a docker system since docker replaces init to run a single process _other than_ init) EDIT: I guess now I'm volunteering to try and put Exherbo on the list.

I thought that Exherbo was very diy-oriented distro with with the assumption that users will package their own packages if the need arises.

Re: Docker releases version 0.2.0

#34

Post by sproketboy » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 11:46 AM UTC

Seriously? No description on their page of what this thing actually is? When are devs going to learn to PUT a 1 LINE MISSION STATEMENT FOR YOUR PROJECT ON YOUR SITE.

Re: Docker releases version 0.2.0

#35

Post by yebyen » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 12:21 PM UTC

zokier wrote: post #33

yebyen wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will be pleased when Exherbo is added to the list. (Although 90% of the fun I had with exherbo was struggling to get the systemd in place, and that's nullified in a docker system since docker replaces init to run a single process _other than_ init) EDIT: I guess now I'm volunteering to try and put Exherbo on the list.

I thought that Exherbo was very diy-oriented distro with with the assumption that users will package their own packages if the need arises.

Yeah, so? If it's a monstrous undertaking just to get the system to first boot, how does that help anyone? :)

I think that cave is just as useful without init, and I think that most people who want to package something in paludis are not going to be having boot dependencies (on average I would guess at least 50% of apps are not services. I don't have any hard statistics and that number could be high or low.)

Re: Docker releases version 0.2.0

#36

Post by auxbuss » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 5:02 PM UTC

shykes wrote: post #5

andyl wrote: post #4

Does anyone know if Docker runs on a 32-bit ubuntu host?

Not yet... We're sticking to x86_64 for now to maintain focus. Once we've nailed the experience on 1 arch we will extend to more.

Awesome work, Solomon & team. Just to add that I have a bunch of 32-bit that this I would love to use this on. Looks like a potential game-changer, imo. Thanks so much for sharing.