These are massive names using Go now. This is an exciting time for Gophers.
I'm curious how a vague cheerleading-your-favourite-technology comment became the most upvoted in this discussion.
Microsoft, RedHat, IBM, Docker, Mesosphere, CoreOS and SaltStack join Kubernetes
31–40 of 56 posts
Re: Microsoft, RedHat, IBM, Docker, Mesosphere, CoreOS and SaltStack join Kubernetes
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. Even in an absolute sense, linux-vserver is/was contemporary with zones. Yes, in the sense that partitioning technology isn't new. zones and jails are comparable to vserver/openvz/lxc. vpars, lpars, and ldoms have analogues on mainframes. Various hypervisor technologies (xen, kvm, vmkernel) are also not unique to solaris, and were done on Linux. What Docker offers that none of these do not is that it's co…
Sorry, but I'm going to disagree. linux-vserver is not contemporary with zones. If you think that it is, you haven't looked at Solaris zones technology very carefully. linux-vserver requires the kernel to be patched; Solaris zones does not. linux-vserver has no clustering or process migration capability; Solaris zones in combination with LDOMs gives you a path for live migration. linux-vserver networking is based on…
This is not something you agree or disgree with. The Linux technologies mentioned _was_ contemporary, or in specific cases even pre-dates, zones.
The rest is just not a one-to-one comparison. The fact that Linux requires the kernel to be patched is a cultural thing. That is how new functionality is distributed in Linux land.
Linux-vserver also does not, as you mention, offer comparable functionality. Solaris Zones works differently, and the only cases where you can compare them is where their use cases overlap. But you will see much more overlap with something like LXC.
Any direct comparion is moot however, as Sun/Oracle does not want these technologies to be adopted in Linux. They can at most serve as (valuable) proof of concepts on how the implementation works in the real world as Linux slowly gains corresponding functionality. And it increasingly looks like Docker is part of this picture.
Re: Microsoft, RedHat, IBM, Docker, Mesosphere, CoreOS and SaltStack join Kubernetes
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
> light weight and easily-managed containers rather than virtualizing entire systems. Not if lighweight easily-manage containers can run Windows. Not just windows but any non-matching-with-host-kernel OS-es so nobody is eating VMWare's lunch yet.
I think after the baby boomers have left the picture in business, windows will slowly die out. Developers today are using OSX and Linux. Don't quote me, but traditional schools are the only ones using windows. My college does, and I honestly think its a learning point for all developers to know Linux over windows because of usage around the world. Tech companies are dropping windows for the opposing systems because o…
Speaking of OSX, what is there equivalent?
I've used Solaris Zones and LXC containers, but the closest thing on OSX is sandbox. But that's not very close as far as I can tell.
Re: Microsoft, RedHat, IBM, Docker, Mesosphere, CoreOS and SaltStack join Kubernetes
#34Re: Microsoft, RedHat, IBM, Docker, Mesosphere, CoreOS and SaltStack join Kubernetes
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think after the baby boomers have left the picture in business, windows will slowly die out. Developers today are using OSX and Linux. Don't quote me, but traditional schools are the only ones using windows. My college does, and I honestly think its a learning point for all developers to know Linux over windows because of usage around the world. Tech companies are dropping windows for the opposing systems because o…
Speaking of OSX, what is there equivalent? I've used Solaris Zones and LXC containers, but the closest thing on OSX is sandbox. But that's not very close as far as I can tell.
OS X has no containerisation equivalent. The closest thing is the venerable chroot, but the behaviour is not comparable.
Perhaps a Docker chroot backend could be built though, for easier development on OS X.
Re: Microsoft, RedHat, IBM, Docker, Mesosphere, CoreOS and SaltStack join Kubernetes
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious how a vague cheerleading-your-favourite-technology comment became the most upvoted in this discussion.
I think "This is an exciting time for Gophers." is the reason.
Gophers? Thats what developers who use the Go language call themselves?
What's with the ridiculously bad naming/branding in the tech world?
* Gophers (the animal) are considered by many to be a pest.
* The Docker logo is a whale carrying shipping containers on its back. Shipping containers that go into the ocean are basically unrecoverable/not worth recovering, and whales spend very little of their time on the surface (meaning all the containers will go into the ocean)
This is as ridiculous as having an airline named after an animal that cannot fly and kills people.
Re: Microsoft, RedHat, IBM, Docker, Mesosphere, CoreOS and SaltStack join Kubernetes
#37crickets from VMWare/EMC. Docker/containers will eat their lunch if they don't jump in and get involved.
If KVM didn't eat their lunch already, why would Docker be different?
They're not the same thing, and there's currently no lunch eating going on.
KVM is a full hypervisor. It can run Linux, Windows, OSX, Solaris, etc.
Docker on Linux can run Linux. It can do it with less overhead and higher performance than KVM.
Re: Microsoft, RedHat, IBM, Docker, Mesosphere, CoreOS and SaltStack join Kubernetes
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Speaking of OSX, what is there equivalent? I've used Solaris Zones and LXC containers, but the closest thing on OSX is sandbox. But that's not very close as far as I can tell.
OS X has no containerisation equivalent. The closest thing is the venerable chroot, but the behaviour is not comparable. Perhaps a Docker chroot backend could be built though, for easier development on OS X.
I was just thinking what a pain it is to have to use VMs/ssh in order to get access to containers from my Mac OS machine. It made be (semi-seriously) consider getting a Linux machine as my next laptop. I'm still a bit skeptical but it is a start to think about it.
Re: Microsoft, RedHat, IBM, Docker, Mesosphere, CoreOS and SaltStack join Kubernetes
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
OS X has no containerisation equivalent. The closest thing is the venerable chroot, but the behaviour is not comparable. Perhaps a Docker chroot backend could be built though, for easier development on OS X.
I was just thinking what a pain it is to have to use VMs/ssh in order to get access to containers from my Mac OS machine. It made be (semi-seriously) consider getting a Linux machine as my next laptop. I'm still a bit skeptical but it is a start to think about it.
Just dual boot Arch on your current machine, it's pretty easy and you get to keep using the Mac hardware! :D
Re: Microsoft, RedHat, IBM, Docker, Mesosphere, CoreOS and SaltStack join Kubernetes
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. Even in an absolute sense, linux-vserver is/was contemporary with zones. Yes, in the sense that partitioning technology isn't new. zones and jails are comparable to vserver/openvz/lxc. vpars, lpars, and ldoms have analogues on mainframes. Various hypervisor technologies (xen, kvm, vmkernel) are also not unique to solaris, and were done on Linux. What Docker offers that none of these do not is that it's co…
Sorry, but I'm going to disagree. linux-vserver is not contemporary with zones. If you think that it is, you haven't looked at Solaris zones technology very carefully. linux-vserver requires the kernel to be patched; Solaris zones does not. linux-vserver has no clustering or process migration capability; Solaris zones in combination with LDOMs gives you a path for live migration. linux-vserver networking is based on…
It's unreasonable to compare the functionality of zones in 2014 with their functionality in 2005, when vserver was contemporary and the principal containerization solution.
In 2014, you'll find that LXC or OpenVZ (or Xen paravirt in some environments) are the preferred virtualization solutions and have been for years, which have every advantage zones have.
By "weight" of zones, I mean that they're still effectively Solaris containers running init and basic services. Linux containers do this. Docker doesn't. It's app virtualization.