Hacker News Reader

Comment by deckard1 | Hacker News Reader

Docker feels like the equivalent of the teenager that doesn't want to clean his room so he just pushes all his mess under the bed.

The complexity is still under the bed. We're all going to have to dig under that bed one day. Or we're just going to end up buying new hockey sticks, football pads, etc. Which is to say, we're going to end up with Linux on top of Docker on top of Linux.

View on HN

I'm not sure I follow the analogy. I'm guessing the mess represents a messy filesystem/environment. What does the bed represent? A Dockerfile? Dockerfiles are way more transparent than, say, a random server's / directory.

That's just my opinion of course. It's possible to write confusing Dockerfiles but really they're mostly just shell scripts. And the idea of "Linux on top of Docker" seems a bit odd - there's only ever one Linux kernel no matter how many containers you have running. Docker is built on Linux.

It's closer to owning a car factory making disposable cars and getting a new one when it gets dirty. At some point your supplier shuts down and you cannot make a specific part anymore, which prevents you from building another car. You are now stuck with the dirty car.

If your application doesn't rely on hardware details (such as GPU acceleration or networking) that bypasses well-defined OS APIs, it's actually a very good approach.

Amen. I find generic scripts to be way more mangemaable. You can still use them with docker, but you can also just buy any Linux VM and go.

Also, easy to backup.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com