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

41–50 of 118 posts

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

#41

Post by hu3 »

aryonoco wrote: post #7
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…

Docker for Windows and Mac are both bloated pieces of software, outperformed by Rancher Desktop and Orbstack. Docker's only real innovation was the OCI format, which it had to give away for it to become an industry standard, and now doesn't own.

Docker on Windows can use WSL2 engine for near native performance.

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

#42

Post by mardifoufs »

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

That's what people usually say but they have tried to do just that a few years ago and it didn't really work. Docker inc has been doing great since they have shifted towards even more standardization in their container runtime, and focused on dev tooling. They became profitable when they focused on Docker desktop and docker hub instead of trying to build a clunky alternative to kubernetes or yet another cloud orchestration tool/platform.

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

#43

Post by mardifoufs »

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

How exactly is docker (buildkit, compose, the runtime, the daemon, etc) not open source? Docker desktop isn't, but that's almost entirely unrelated to the containerization technology that it uses or that people refer to when they talk about docker.

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

#45

Post by ddtaylor »

WanderPanda wrote: post #44

Makes me wonder why docker still didn't make it to the ubuntu/debian repositories. Would be such an easy net benefit

(a) Docker wants to bundle vendor libraries instead of using other packages and (b) Canonical uses LXD and MicroK8s instead.

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

#46

Post by Neywiny »

I like when repos say "not implemented yet" or "to-do" or "working on" and the last commit was years ago. Makes me feel better about not going back to my to-dos I drop through my code. (Not meaning to throw shade on this author, just finding it comforting)

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

#47

Post by syndicatedjelly »

magic_hamster wrote: post #5
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…

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.

I've been using Docker CLI for Mac happily for years. What am I missing?

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

#48

Post by schmichael »

amelius wrote: post #23

Does it require root access to the machine I have a user account on?

Yes, from the README:

> Bocker runs as root and among other things needs to make changes to your network interfaces, routing table, and firewall rules. I can make no guarantees that it won't trash your system.

Linux makes it quite hard to run "containers" as an unprivileged user. Not impossible! https://github.com/rootless-containers/rootlesskit is one approach and demonstrates much of the difficulty involved. Networking is perhaps the most problematic. Your choices are either setuid binaries (so basically less-root as opposed to root-less) or usermode networking. slirp4netns is the state of the art here as far as I know, but not without security and performance tradeoffs.

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

#49

Post by karmajunkie »

jml78 wrote: post #11
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…

I would look at Orbstack. Yes it costs money but it is pretty great. Your situation sounds very similar to the company I work for. Orbstack has been a drop in replacement except one issue. Any dev using IPv6 assignment on their home network has issues where pods try to hit external dns because it tries to use IPv6 and I don’t think the Orbstack k8s instance is dual stack. There are hacks to get around it but if I cou…

i used it for a year or so then subscribed finally the other day. it really is well worth the money.
Post reply on HN