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

81–90 of 122 posts

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

#81

Post by kristopolous »

kazinator wrote: post #79
rtlfe wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Don't know if it can be used as a proper Docker replacement The readme says "I can make no guarantees that it won't trash your system", so yeah clearly not intended for real use.

Where does Docker guarantee that it won't trash your system? See here: https://www.docker.com/legal/docker-terms-service/ Under EXCLUSION OF WARRANTIES and LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. Here, Bocker is also a replacement for Docker in exactly the same sense: Bocker's simple statement "I can't guarantee it won't trash your system" is a concise alterantive to a wall of legalese.

To be fair one is for demonstration purposes and the other is intended to be used. They seek the same protections regardless. It's kind of like how a $1,000 water filtration system wants the same legal protection that a $15 Brita does or heck, I'd assume if you got scammed with a fraudulent water filter that used orgone energy and crystals, it too would also want those legal protections.

You'd probably want to tread cautiously if someone doesn't use disclaimers - that's probably a more dangerous product.

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

#82

Post by esjeon »

nine_k wrote: post #77
systemvoltage wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What drives me insane about Docker is the user interface it exposes. There are atleast 3 or 4 ways to do something. API is terrible (ports - 127.0.0.1:5000:5000 is confusing as fuck design). Volumes is a total mess, networking is worse and as a veteran user of docker for over 4 years on a daily basis, I still get confused about everything Docker is and is not. It is one tool that makes me feel like a moron. I know it…

While some parts of Docker are far from elegance, I find the isolation of containers from the host by default a beneficial feature, and part of the very point of containers. The syntax of port mapping is unfortunate and unergonomic, but I suppose it just follows the syntax of port forwarding in OpenSSH :-/ For a number of improvements / different trade-offs, see Podman. But does it have a neat client for macOS, which…

> I find the isolation of containers from the host by default a beneficial feature, and part of the very point of containers.

There are some valid usecases during development - run some services on the host, while running the rest in containers. Containers doesn't need to know if it's connecting to the host or other containers. Just pass a proper URL, and services must blindly connect to it.

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

#83

Post by codegeek »

nine_k wrote: post #80
mavu wrote: post #49

Love this. There is no other single project as overhyped and over used as Docker. This is a great way of making fun of it.

If docker is overused, what would you suggest instead?

For many cases, you don't need it. For example, deploying a Go binary. Some people have the habit of dockerizing everything at any cost and complexity.

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

#85

Post by kazinator »

kristopolous wrote: post #81
kazinator wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does Docker guarantee that it won't trash your system? See here: https://www.docker.com/legal/docker-terms-service/ Under EXCLUSION OF WARRANTIES and LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. Here, Bocker is also a replacement for Docker in exactly the same sense: Bocker's simple statement "I can't guarantee it won't trash your system" is a concise alterantive to a wall of legalese.

To be fair one is for demonstration purposes and the other is intended to be used. They seek the same protections regardless. It's kind of like how a $1,000 water filtration system wants the same legal protection that a $15 Brita does or heck, I'd assume if you got scammed with a fraudulent water filter that used orgone energy and crystals, it too would also want those legal protections. You'd probably want to tread…

Sure, but in this case both Bocker and Docker just orchestrate features of Linux, which is where all the risks and complexity lies.

To verify that Bocker adds no additional issues is a smaller job than verifying Docker in the same way.

If there is some problem in the actual containerization, Bocker and Docker will be equally affected.

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

#86

Post by CoolCold »

LaLaLand122 wrote: post #46
wmf wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You shouldn't replace Docker with a shell script but you should understand (at some level) how Docker works. Unfortunately this code is pretty dense so it would probably take a while to untangle it.

> You shouldn't replace Docker with a shell script True. You should replace it with podman!

I see such suggestions here and there, but after quick redditing I've got impression podman brings more chores being rootless and daemonless. I couldn't justify usage of it for myself.

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

#88

Post by bottled_poe »

kazinator wrote: post #79
rtlfe wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Don't know if it can be used as a proper Docker replacement The readme says "I can make no guarantees that it won't trash your system", so yeah clearly not intended for real use.

Where does Docker guarantee that it won't trash your system? See here: https://www.docker.com/legal/docker-terms-service/ Under EXCLUSION OF WARRANTIES and LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. Here, Bocker is also a replacement for Docker in exactly the same sense: Bocker's simple statement "I can't guarantee it won't trash your system" is a concise alterantive to a wall of legalese.

But.. it’s not a good alternative. This description is not as precise or as bounded as the “legalese” wording.

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

#89

Post by eru »

codegeek wrote: post #83
nine_k wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If docker is overused, what would you suggest instead?

For many cases, you don't need it. For example, deploying a Go binary. Some people have the habit of dockerizing everything at any cost and complexity.

You can still stick a single binary in a container. (Putting a whole Linux in the container as well, that's probably overkill. And alas, it's also what docker does by default.)

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

#90

Post by makapuf »

bottled_poe wrote: post #88
kazinator wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does Docker guarantee that it won't trash your system? See here: https://www.docker.com/legal/docker-terms-service/ Under EXCLUSION OF WARRANTIES and LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. Here, Bocker is also a replacement for Docker in exactly the same sense: Bocker's simple statement "I can't guarantee it won't trash your system" is a concise alterantive to a wall of legalese.

But.. it’s not a good alternative. This description is not as precise or as bounded as the “legalese” wording.

Well, I didn't read the legalese but read this short sentence. That makes it 1000% better for me right now, you can't abstract away the message channel. Maybe the best would be to have a short 10-line summary then the legally bounding legalese. (Edit: nonsense spelling error)
Post reply on HN