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

Alpine Linux is reducing dependencies on Busybox

gitlab.alpinelinux.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 87 posts

Re: Alpine Linux is reducing dependencies on Busybox

#51

Post by herewulf »

onefuncman wrote: post #44
LAC-Tech wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

intuitive CLI, things are packaged a bit better, easy configuration. I swore off of apt based distros after I accidentally installed some graphical things on my WSL and multiple debian wizards couldn't figure out how to remove them, even when I installed stuff like dpigs and aptitude.

My golden rule of sys admin is if you can't fix it, you reformat and replace it. If you reproduce the error, congrats, now you get to figure out where to file the bug report with reproduction steps.

My golden rule of sys admin is that anything on a Linux based OS can be fixed. Preferably without a reboot.

Though a friend of mine once discovered that it's a bad idea to force remove glibc (on a non BusyBox distro, of course).

Re: Alpine Linux is reducing dependencies on Busybox

#52

Post by rahen »

nine_k wrote: post #45
silon42 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about alpine-systemd?

Why would Alpine need systemd? Why would you need it in a container?

I'm not a fan of using Alpine in containers.

Use it baremetal for your servers and desktops, then use Debian/CentOS containers on top when something is missing.

Re: Alpine Linux is reducing dependencies on Busybox

#53

Post by raverbashing »

josteink wrote: post #49
nine_k wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would Alpine need systemd? Why would you need it in a container?

To make sure that once services are up and running, they keep running and are restarted automatically? To have good, centralized logging? To manage in-container services the same way you do on the container host? There's plenty of good reasons for one to want to do so.

None of those things are actually needed in a container.

If you're actually doing those things inside one, you're literally doing it wrong

Yes you might have some special cases where some of this is needed but I'd use anything besides systemd

Re: Alpine Linux is reducing dependencies on Busybox

#54

Post by strzibny »

spockz wrote: post #50
josteink wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To make sure that once services are up and running, they keep running and are restarted automatically? To have good, centralized logging? To manage in-container services the same way you do on the container host? There's plenty of good reasons for one to want to do so.

I think it is counter to best practices to run multiple services in a single container. Although maybe you just need to with some proprietary software.

No, it's just another way how to do things.

Re: Alpine Linux is reducing dependencies on Busybox

#55

Post by btbuilder »

raverbashing wrote: post #53
josteink wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To make sure that once services are up and running, they keep running and are restarted automatically? To have good, centralized logging? To manage in-container services the same way you do on the container host? There's plenty of good reasons for one to want to do so.

None of those things are actually needed in a container. If you're actually doing those things inside one, you're literally doing it wrong Yes you might have some special cases where some of this is needed but I'd use anything besides systemd

Some use-cases do require an init-providing process of some sort but you likely want to use tini.

See for more details: https://github.com/krallin/tini/issues/8#issuecomment-146135...

Re: Alpine Linux is reducing dependencies on Busybox

#56

Post by Deukhoofd »

nine_k wrote: post #45
silon42 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about alpine-systemd?

Why would Alpine need systemd? Why would you need it in a container?

Why would you assume Alpine is only used for containers? I use it for my own local home server, as it's very lightweight and easy to tweak to how I want it.

Re: Alpine Linux is reducing dependencies on Busybox

#57

Post by Arnavion »

Deukhoofd wrote: post #56
nine_k wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would Alpine need systemd? Why would you need it in a container?

Why would you assume Alpine is only used for containers? I use it for my own local home server, as it's very lightweight and easy to tweak to how I want it.

Not to mention every postmarketOS-running phone and tablet.

Re: Alpine Linux is reducing dependencies on Busybox

#58

Post by 5e92cb50239222b »

herewulf wrote: post #51
onefuncman wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My golden rule of sys admin is if you can't fix it, you reformat and replace it. If you reproduce the error, congrats, now you get to figure out where to file the bug report with reproduction steps.

My golden rule of sys admin is that anything on a Linux based OS can be fixed. Preferably without a reboot. Though a friend of mine once discovered that it's a bad idea to force remove glibc (on a non BusyBox distro, of course).

God, yes. If all you know is reboot & reinstall (bad habits probably brought from the windows world where you generally can't do anything else), you'll never get past the basics.

Re: Alpine Linux is reducing dependencies on Busybox

#59

Post by matthews2 »

Arnavion wrote: post #57
Deukhoofd wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you assume Alpine is only used for containers? I use it for my own local home server, as it's very lightweight and easy to tweak to how I want it.

Not to mention every postmarketOS-running phone and tablet.

I don't think there are many of those...

Re: Alpine Linux is reducing dependencies on Busybox

#60

Post by megous »

raverbashing wrote: post #53
josteink wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To make sure that once services are up and running, they keep running and are restarted automatically? To have good, centralized logging? To manage in-container services the same way you do on the container host? There's plenty of good reasons for one to want to do so.

None of those things are actually needed in a container. If you're actually doing those things inside one, you're literally doing it wrong Yes you might have some special cases where some of this is needed but I'd use anything besides systemd

All of the cheap Linux container hosting services are doing it wrong, I guess.
Post reply on HN