A decade of Docker containers
cacm.acm.org
cacm.acm.org
The flip side is that the world still hasn’t settled on a language-neutral build tool that works for all languages. Therefore we resort to running arbitrary commands to invoke language-specific package managers. In an alternate timeline where everyone uses Nix or Bazel or some such, docker build would be laughed out of the window.
> running arbitrary commands to invoke language-specific package managers.
This is exactly what we do in Nix. You see this everywhere in nixpkgs.
What sets apart Nix from docker is not that it works well at a finer granularity, i.e. source-file-level, but that it has real hermeticity and thus reliable caching. That is, we also run arbitrary commands, but they don't get to talk to the internet and thus don't get to e.g. `apt update`.
In a Dockerfile, you can `apt update` all you want, and this makes the build layer cache a very leaky abstraction. This is merely an annoyance when working on an individual container build but would be a complete dealbreaker at linux-distro-scale, which is what Nix operates at.
And in languages with insufficient abstraction power like C and Go, you often need to invoke a code generation tool to generate the sources; that's an extremely arbitrary command. These are just non-problems if you have hermetic builds and reliable caching.
On my nixos-rebuild, building a simple config file for in /etc takes much longer than a common gcc invocation to compile a C file. I suspect that is due to something in Nix's Linux sandbox setup being slow, or at least I remember some issue discussions around that; I think the worst part of that got improved but it's still quite slow today.
Because of that, it's much faster to do N build steps inside 1 nix build sandbox, than the other way around.
Another issue is that some programming languages have build systems that are better than the "oneshot" compilation used by most programming languages (one compiler invocation per file producing one object file, e.g. ` gcc x.c x.o`). For example, Haskell has `ghc --make` which compiles the whole project in one compiler invocation, with very smart recompilation avoidance (pet-function, comment changes don't affect compilation, etc) and avoidance of repeat steps (e.g. parsing/deserialising inputs to a module's compilation only once and keeping them in memory) and compiler startup cost.
Combining that with per-file general-purpose hermetic build systems is difficult and currently not implemented anywhere as far as I can tell.
To get something similar with Nix, the language-specific build system would have to invoke Nix in a very fine-grained way, e.g. to get "avoidance of codegen if only a comment changed", Nix would have to be invoked at each of the parser/desugar/codegen parts of the compiler.
I guess a solution to that is to make the oneshot mode much faster by better serialisation caching.
preferLocalBuild = true;
allowSubstitutes = false;
If you are interested in seeing my experiment, it's open on your favourite forge:
For those who want more of him, check out his classic TED talk from decades ago: “Lessons from an ad man”
https://www.ted.com/talks/rory_sutherland_life_lessons_from_...
Therefore I would rephrase your remarks as upside: let others continue scratch their head while others deploy working code to PROD.
I am glad there is a solution like Docker - with all it flaws. Nothing is flawless, there is always just yet another sub-optimal solution weighting out the others by a large margin.
> let others continue scratch their head while others deploy working code to PROD.
You make it sound like when docker build arrived on the scene, a cross-language hermetic build tool was still a research project. That’s just untrue.
That's not going to work if both parties get different hashes when they build the image, which won't happen as long as file modification timestamps (and other such hazards) are part of what gets hashed.
It's not just the timestamps you need to worry about. Tar needs to be consistent with the uid vs username, gzip compression depends on implementations and settings, and the json encoding can vary by implementation.
And all this assumes the commands being run are reproducible themselves. One issue I encountered there was how alpine tracks their package install state from apk, which is a tar file that includes timestamps. There are also timestamps in logs. Not to mention installing packages needs to pin those package versions.
All of this is hard, and the Dockerfile didn't make it easy, but it is possible. With the right tools installed, reproducing my own images has a documented process [2].
I've been doing the same, using https://github.com/reproducible-containers/repro-sources-lis... . It allows you to precisely pin the state of the distro package sources in your Docker image, using snapshot.ubuntu.com & friends, so that you can fearlessly do `apt-get update && apt-get install XYZ`.
I’m more concerned about sources being poisoned over the build processes. Xz is a great example of this.
If you flip it around and instead have magically audited source but a shaky build, then perhaps a diligent user can protect themself, but they do so by doing their own builds, which means they're unaware that the attack even exists. This allows the attacker to just keep trying until they compromise somebody who is less diligent.
Getting caught requires a user who analyses downloaded binaries in something like ghidra... who does that when it's much easier to just build them from sources instead? (answer: vanishingly few people). And even once the attacker is found out, they can just hide the same payload a bit differently, and the scanners will stop finding it again.
Also, "maybe the code itself is malicious" can only ever be solved the hard way, whereas we have a reasonable hope of someday providing an easy solution to the "maybe the build is malicious" problem.
Personally I love using mkosi and while it has all the composability and deployment options I'd care for, its clear not everyone wants to build starting only with a blank set of OS templates.
Or do you mean a replacement for docker hub?
Want to throw a requirements.txt in there? No no, why would you even ask that? Meanwhile docker says yeah sure just run pip install, why should I care?
Like all LLM boosters, you've ignored the fact that the largest time sink in many kinds of software is not initial development, but perpetual maintenance.
If you care about getting it to work with minimal effort right now more thar about it being sustainable later, then sure.
Most of the complaints I've seen about Nix about around documentation, so "once you learn it" might be the larger issue.
In Spack [1] we do one layer per package; it's appealing, but I never checked if besides the layer limit it's actually bad for performance when doing filesystem operations.
tl;dr it will put one package per layer as much as possible, and compress everything else into the final layer. It uses the dependency graph to implement a reasonable heuristic for what is fine grained and what get combined.
The layer layout is just a json file so it can be post processed w/o issue before passing to the nix docker builders
It seems overly orthogonal for the typical use case but perhaps just not enough of an annoyance for anyone to change it.
I wish we had standardized on something other than shell commands, though. Puppet or terraform or something more declarative would have been such a better alternative to “everyone cargo cults ‘RUN apt-get upgrade’ onto the top of their dockerfiles”.
Like, the layer/stage/caching behavior is fine. I just wish the actual execution parts had been standardized using something at a higher level of abstraction than shell.
Until you need to do something that isn't covered with its DSL, and you extend it with an external command execution declaration... At which point people will just write bash scripts anyway and use your declarative language as a glorified exec.
In Azure YAML I had an odd bug because I used succeeded() instead of not(failed()) as a condition. I had no way of testing the pipeline without executing it. And each DSL has its own special set of sharp edges.
At least Bash's common edges are well known.
However, Dockerfiles are so popular because they run shell commands and permit 'socially' extending someone else shell commands; tacking commands onto the end of someone else's shell script is a natural process. /bin/sh is unreasonably effective at doing anything you need to a filesystem, and if the shell exposes a feature, it has probably been used in a Dockerfile somewhere.
Every other solution, especially declarative ones, tend to come up short when _layering_ images quickly and easily. However, I agree they're good if you control the entire declarative spec.
They sounded nice on paper but the work they replaced was somehow more annoying.
I moved over to Docker when it came out because it used shell.
Its a Buildkit frontend, so you still use "docker build".
If your dockerfile says “ensure package X is installed at version Y” that’s a lot clearer (and also more easy to make performant/cached and deterministic) than “apt-get update; apt-get install $transitive-at-specific-version; apt-get install $the-thing-you-need-atspecific-version”. I’m not thrilled at how distro-locked the shell version makes you, and how easy it is for accidental transitive changes to occur too.
But neither of those approaches is at a particularly low abstraction level relative to the OS itself; files and system calls are more or less hidden away in both package-manager-via-bash and puppet/terraform/whatever.
And if you want something weird that's not supported by your particular tool of choice, you have the escape hatch of running arbitrary commands in the Dockerfile.
What more do you want?
I'd get your worry if we were talking about splitting up a terraform config and running it across multiple RUN directives, but we're not, are we?
Random examples off the top of my head: Puppet has a ton of transitive Ruby libraries and config files/caches that it leaves around; Terraform leaves some very big provider caches on the system; plan or output files, if generated and not cleaned up, can contain secrets; even the “control group” of the status quo with RUN instructions often results in package manager indexes and caches being left in images.
Those are all technically user error (hence why I called them footguns rather than defects), but they add up and are easy mistakes to make.
I'd get much better results it I used something else to do the foreach and gave terraform only static rules.
Do you mean that if you use a dynamic output in a foreach, Terrafom can error? Or are you referring to “dynamic” blocks and their interactions with iterators?
But as long as people want to use scripting languages (like php, python etc) i guess docker is the neccessary evil.
I'll tell that to my CI runner, how easy is it for Go to download the Android SDK and to run Gradle? Can I also `go sonarqube` and `go run-my-pullrequest-verifications` ? Or are you also going to tell me that I can replace that with a shitty set of github actions ?
I'll also tell Microsoft they should update the C# definition to mark it down as a scripting language. And to actually give up on the whole language, why would they do anything when they could tell every developer to write if err != nil instead
Just because you have an extremely narrow view of the field doesn't mean it's the only thing that matters.
E.g. systemd exposes a lot of resource control as well as sandboxing options, to the point that I would argue that systemd services can be very similar to "traditional" runtime containers, without any image involved.
Interesting. How does go build my python app?
Real languages don't let errors go silently unnoticed.
Then I found an HN comment I wrote a few years ago that confirmed this:
“[...] I remember that day pretty clearly because in the same lightning talk session, Solomon Hykes introduced the Python community to docker, while still working on dotCloud. This is what I think might have been the earliest public and recorded tech talk on the subject:”
YouTube link: https://youtu.be/1vui-LupKJI?t=1579
Note: starts at t=1579, which is 26:19.
Just being pedantic though. That’s about 13 years ago. The lightning talk is fun as a bit of computing history.
(Edit: as I was digging through the paper, they do cite this YouTube presentation, or a copy of it anyway, in the footnotes. And they refer to a 2013 release. Perhaps there was a multi-year delay between the paper being submitted to ACM with this title and it being published. Again, just being pedantic!)
We first submitted the article to the CACM a while ago.
The review process takes some time and "Twelve years of
Docker containers" didn't have quite the same vibe.
Here’s the announcement from 2013:
Well, before Docker I used to work on Xen and that possible future of massive block devices assembled using Vagrant and Packer has thankfully been avoided...
One thing that's hard to capture in the article -- but that permeated the early Dockercons -- is the (positive) disruption Docker had in how IT shops were run. Before that going to production was a giant effort, and 'shipping your filesystem' quickly was such a change in how people approached their work. We had so many people come up to us grateful that they could suddenly build services more quickly and get them into the hands of users without having to seek permission slips signed in triplicate.
We're seeing the another seismic cultural shift now with coding agents, but I think Docker had a similar impact back then, and it was a really fun community spirit. Less so today with the giant hyperscalars all dominating, sadly, but I'll keep my fond memories :-)
Some of those talks strangely make more sense today (e.g. Rump Kernels or unikernels + coding agents seems like a really good combination, as the agent could search all the way through the kernel layers as well).
Funny comment considering lightweight/micro-VMs built with tools like Packer are what some in the industry are moving towards.
"Ship your machine to production" isn't so bad when you have a ten-line script to recreate the machine at the push of a button.
Wonder when some enterprising OSS dev will rebrand dynamic linking in the future...
I don't care about glibc or compatibility with /etc/nsswitch.conf.
look at the hack rust does because it uses libc:
> pub unsafe fn set_var<K: AsRef<OsStr>, V: AsRef<OsStr>>(key: K, value: V)
So what do you do when you need to resolve system users? I sure hope you don't parse /etc/passwd, since plenty of users (me included) use other user databases (e.g. sssd or systemd-userdbd).
I guess what bothers me is the software authors who don't think this through, leaving applications non-functional in these situations.
At least with Go, if you do CGO_ENABLED=0, and you use the stdlib functions to resolve user information, you end up with parsed /etc/passwd instead of shelling out to id. The Go stdlib should maybe shell out to id instead, but it doesn't. And it's understandable that software developers use the stdlib functions without thinking all too much about it. But in the end, simply advocating for CGO_ENABLED=0 results in software that is broken around the edges.
Moving from linking stuff in-process to IPC (such as systemd-userdbd is promoting) _seems_ to me like a natural thing to do, given the nastiness that can happen when you bring something complex into your own address space (via C semantics nonetheless). But I'm not very knowledgeable here and would be interested to hear your overall take.
For example, you technically can't sandbox any app with NSS/PAM modules, because a module might want to send an email (yes, I saw that in real life) or use a USB device.
NSS/PAM need to be replaced with IPC-based solutions. systemd is evolving a replacement for PAM.
And for NSS modules in particular, we even have a standard solution: NSCD. It's even supported by musl libc, but for some reason nobody even _knows_ that it exists. Porting the NSCD protocol to Go is like 20 minutes of work. I looked at doing that more than once, but got discouraged by the other 99% of complexity in getting something like this into the core Go code.
I think it’s laziness, not difficulty. That’s not meant to be snide or glib: I think gaining expertise in how to package and deploy non-containerized applications isn’t difficult or unattainable for most engineers; rather, it’s tedious and specialized work to gain that expertise, and Docker allowed much of the field to skip doing it.
That’s not good or bad per se, but I do think it’s different from “pre-container deployment was hard”. Pre-container deployment was neglected and not widely recognized as a specialty that needed to be cultivated, so most shops sucked at it. That’s not the same as “hard”.
Minus the kernel of course. What is one to do for workloads requiring special kernel features or modules?
I sort of had the problem in mind. Docker is the answer. Not clever enough to have inventer it.
If I did I would probably have invented octopus deploy as I was a Microsoft/.NET guy.
Good luck convincing people to switch!
Using it, solving problems with it, and building a real community around it tend to make a much greater impact in the long run.
That means unlike Gentoo, I've never dealt with a "slot conflict" where two packages want conflicting dependencies. And unlike Ubuntu, I have new versions of everything.
Pick 2: share dependencies, be on the bleeding edge, or waste your time resolving conflicts.
Absolutely not. Nix and Guix are package managers that (very simplified) model the build process of software as pure functions mapping dependencies and source code as inputs to a resulting build as their output. Docker is something entirely different.
> they’re both still throwing in the towel on deploying directly on the underlying OS’s userland
The existence of an underlying OS userland _is_ the disaster. You can't build a robust package management system on a shaky foundation, if nix or guix were to use anything from the host OS their packaging model would fundamentally break.
> unless you go all the way to nixOS
NixOS does not have a "traditional/standard/global" OS userland on which anything could be deployed (excluding /bin/sh for simplicity). A package installed with nix on NixOS is identical to the same package being installed on a non-NixOS system (modulo system architecture).
> shipping what amounts to a filesystem in a box
No. Docker ships a "filesystem in a box", i.e. an opaque blob, an image. Nix and Guix ship the package definitions from which they derive what they need to have populated in their respective stores, and either build those required packages or download pre-built ones from somewhere else, depending on configuration and availability.
With docker two independent images share nothing, except maybe some base layer, if they happen to use the same one. With nix or Guix, packages automatically share their dependencies iff it is the same dependency. The thing is: if one package depends on lib foo compiled with -O2 and the other one depends on lib foo compiled with -O3, then those are two different dependencies. This nuance is something that only the nix model started to capture at all.
The rest of your endorsement of NixOS is well taken, but this is a silly distinction to draw. Dockerfiles and nix package definitions are extremely similar. The fact that docker images are distributed with a heavier emphasis on opaque binary build step caching, and nix expressions have a heavier emphasis on code-level determinism/purity is accidental. The output of both is some form of a copy of a Linux user space “in a box” (via squashfs and namespaces for Docker, and via path hacks and symlinks for Nix). Zoom out even a little and they look extremely alike.
Unpopular opinion, loosely held: the whole attempt to share any dependencies at all is the source of evil.
If you imagine the absolute worst case scenario that every program shipped all of its dependencies and nothing was shared then the end result would be… a few gigabytes of duplicated data? Which could plausible be deduped at the filesystem level rather than build or deployment layer?
Feels like a big waste of time. Maybe it mattered in the 70s. But that was a long, long time ago.
Nix and guix sort of move this into the source layer. Within their respective distributions you would update the package definition of xz and all packages depending on it would be rebuild to use the new version.
Using shared dependencies is a mostly irrelevant detail that falls out of this in the end. Nix can dedupe at the filesystem layer too, e.g. to reduce duplication between different versions of the same packages.
You can of course ship all dependencies for all packages separately, but you have to have a solution for security updates.
pnpm fixed it exactly the way you describe though: content-addressable store with hardlinks. Every package version exists once on disk, projects just link to it. So the "dedup at filesystem level" approach does work, it just took the ecosystem a decade of pain to get there.
Much harder to get reproducibility with C++ than JavaScript to say the least.
Honestly, I've seen projects that do this. In fact, a lot of projects that do this, at the compilation level.
It feels like a lot of the projects that I would want to use from git pull in their own dependencies via submodules when I compile them, even when I already have the development libraries needed to compile it. It's honestly kind of frustrating.
I mean, I get it - it makes it easier to compile for people who don't actually do things like that regularly. And yeah, I can see why that's a good thing. But at the very least, please give me an option to opt out and to use my own installed libraries.
In other words, the Microsoft Windows update process as applied to software development.
If you have adopted a bad tool then people are likely to want the bad tool in more places. This is the opposite of a virtuous cycle and is a horrible form of tech debt.
Genuinely fascinating and clever solution!
[1] https://github.com/rootless-containers/slirp4netns
[2] https://blog.podman.io/2024/03/podman-5-0-breaking-changes-i...
[3] https://passt.top/passt/about/#pasta-pack-a-subtle-tap-abstr...
SLIRP was useful when you had a dial up shell, and they wouldn't give you slip or ppp; or it would cost extra. SLIRP is just a userspace program that uses the socket apis, so as long as you could run your own programs and make connections to arbitrary destinations, you could make a dial script to connect your computer up like you had a real ppp account. No incomming connections though (afaik), so you weren't really a peer on the internet, a foreshadowing of ubiquitous NAT/CGNAT perhaps.
That's a mistake indeed; "popularised by" might have been better. Before my beloved Palmpilot arrived one Christmas, I was only using SLIRP to ninja in Netscape and MUD sessions onto a dialup connection which wasn't a very mainstream use.
I don't recall whether you could technically open listening ports, at least for a single connection, using slirp, but many, if not all systems, limited opening ports under 1024 to superusers, which (would have?) made running servers on standard ports more difficult.
In any case, I'm glad that you pointed out ACM's apparent revisionist history. They should know better.
There was another component that we didn't have room to cover in the article that has been very stable (for filesystem sharing between the container and the host) that has been endlessly criticised for being slow, but has never corrupted anyone's data! It's interesting that many users preferred potential-dataloss-but-speed using asynchronous IO, but only on desktop environments. I think Docker did the right thing by erring on the side of safety by default.
Sir, this is a hacker news.
(Half assed NOSQL 'databases' with poorly thought out storage models, everything having to be a microservice, turning every function call into a fallible RPC call etc...)
But I've come to appreciate it more, and i use it regularly now. I appreciate its relative simplicity.
But as in life, hell is other people's containers. My own I can at least try to keep them simple and minimal.
But I have seen many use the kitchen sink approach, giving me the feeling that even the developer don't seem to know how they arrived at their deployment anymore.
But this all seems quaint today. With LLMs, now we can look forward to a flood of code the developers haven't even looked at, but which is widely believed to work...
What I want to do when running a Docker container on Mac is to be able to have the container have an IP address separate from the Mac's IP address that applications on the Mac see. No port mapping: if the container has a web server on port 80 I want to access it at container_ip:80, not 127.0.0.1:2000 or something that gets mapped to container port 80.
On Linux I'd just used Docker bridged networking and I believe that would work, but on Mac that just bridges to the Linux VM running under the hypervisor rather than to the Mac.
Is there some officially recommended and supported way to do this?
For a while I did it by running WireGuard on the Linux VM to tunnel between that and the Mac, with forwarding enabled on the Linux VM [1]. That worked great for quite a while, but then stopped and I could not figure out why. Then it worked again. Then it stopped.
I then switched to this [2] which also uses WireGuard but in a much more automated fashion. It worked for quite a while, but also then had some problems with Docker updates sometimes breaking it.
It would be great if Docker on Mac came with something like this built in.
BTW are you trying to avoid port mapping because ports are dynamic and not known in advance? If so you could try running the container with --net=host and in Docker Desktop Settings navigate to Resources / Network and Enable Host Networking. This will automatically set up tunnels when applications listen on a port in the container.
Thanks for the links, I'll dig into those!
I want to avoid port mapping because I already have things on the Mac using the ports that my things in the container are using.
I have a test environment that can run in a VM, container, or an actual machine like an RPi. It has copies of most of our live systems, with customer data removed. It is designed so that as much as possible things inside it run with the exact same configuration they do live. The web sites in then are on ports 80 and 443, MySQL/MariaDB is on 3306, and so on. Similarly, when I'm working on something that needs to access those services from outside the test system I want to as much as possible use the same configuration they will use when live, so they want to connect to those same port numbers.
Thus I need the test environment to have its own IP that the Mac can reach.
Or maybe not...I just remembered something from long ago. I wanted a simpler way to access things inside the firewall at work than using whatever crappy VPN we had, so I made a poor man's VPN with ssh. If I needed to access things on say port 80 and 3306 on host foo at work, I'd ssh to somewhere I could ssh to inside the firewall at work, setting that up to forward say local 10080 and 13306 to foo:80 and foo:3306. I'd add an /etc/hosts entry at foo giving it some unused address like 10.10.10.1. Then I'd use ipfw to set it up so that any attempt to connect to 10.10.10.1:80 or 10.10.10.1:3306 would get forwarded to 127.0.0.1:10080 or 127.0.0.1:13306, respectively. That worked great until Apple replaced ipfw with something else. By then we had a decent VPN for work and so I no longer need my poor man's VPN and didn't look into how to do this in whatever replaced ipfw.
Learning how to do that in whatever Apple now uses might be a nice approach. I'll have to look into that.
As another commenter mentioned, Colima is a good alternative to Docker Desktop if you're looking. It doesn't expose container IPs either, but docker-mac-net-connect does support Colima ootb now.
"Docker, Guix and NixOS (stable) all had their first releases
during 2013, making that a bumper year for packaging aficionados."
easy but powerful, it's not just packaging, it's also a very basic deployment system too. (docker ps) and said better allowed a relatively foolproof cross-platform develop-deploy loop.
When compared to a VM, yes. But shipping a separate userspace for each small app is still bloat. You can reuse software packages and runtime environments across apps. From an I/O, storage, and memory utilization point of view, it feels baffling to me that containers are so popular.
Docker containers also do reuse shared components, layers that are shared between containers are not redownloaded. The stuff that's unique at the bottom is basically just going to be the app you want to run.
Why? It's not virtualization, it's containerization. It's using the host kennel.
Containers are fast.
You can hardly call this efficient hardware utilization.
For running your own machine, sure. But this would become non maintainable for a sufficiently multi tenant system. Nix is the only thing that really can begin to solve this outside of container orchestration.
And it may not even be installed by the system, hence docker.
I've recently switched from docker compose to process compose and it's super nice not to have to map ports or mount volumes. What I actually needed from docker had to do less with containers and more with images, and nix solves that problem better without getting in the way at runtime.
What process-compose gives me is a single parent with all of that project's processes as children, and a nice TUI/CLI for scrolling through them to see who is happy/unhappy and interrogating their logs, and when I shut it down all of that project's dependencies shut down. Pretty much the same flow as docker-compose.
It's all self-contained so I can run it on MacOS and it'll behave just the same as on Linux (I don't think systemd does this, could be wrong), and without requiring me to solve the docker/podman/rancher/orbstack problem (these are dependencies that are hard to bundle in nix, so while everything else comes for free, they come at the cost of complicating my readme with a bunch of requests that the user set things up beforehand).
As a bonus, since it's a single parent process, if I decide to invoke it through libfaketime, the time inherited by subprocess so it's consistently faked in the database and the services and in observability tools...
My feeling for systemd is that it's more for system-level stuff and less for project-level dependencies. Like, if I have separate projects which need different versions of postgres, systemd commands aren't going to give me a natural way to keep track of which project's postgres I'm talking about. process-compose, however, will show me logs for the correct postgres (or whatever service) in these cases:
~/src/projA$ process-compose process logs postgres
~/src/projB$ process-compose process logs postgres
Basically, I'm alergic to configuring my system at all. All dependencies besides nix, my text editor, and my shell are project level dependencies. This makes it easy to hop between machines and not really care about how they're set up. Even on production systems, I'd rather just clone the repo `nix run` in that dir (it then launches process compose which makes everything just like it was in my dev environment). I am however not in charge of any production systems, so perhaps I'm a bit out of touch there.
Why do you think other tools will make a comeback?
Have others found this to be the case? Perhaps we're doing something wrong.
I have some hobby sites I host on a VM and currently I use docker-compose mainly because it's so "easy" to just ssh into the machine and run something like "git pull && docker-compose up" and I can have whatever services + reverse proxy running.
If I were to sum up the requirements it would be to run one command, either it succeeds or fails in it's entirety, minimal to no risk of messing up the env during deployment.
Nix seems interesting but I don't know how it compares (yet to take a good look at it).
I will say that consuming other people's services that I don't intend to develop on is easier with containers. I use podman for my jellyfin and Minecraft servers based on someone else's configs. My only issue with them is the complexity during development.
(article author here)
Apple containers are basically the same as how Docker for Mac works; I wrote about it here: https://anil.recoil.org/notes/apple-containerisation
Unfortunately Apple managed to omit the feature we all want that only they can implement: namespaces for native macOS!
Instead we got yet another embedded-Linux-VM which (imo) didn't really add much to the container ecosystem except a bunch of nice Swift libraries (such as the ext2 parsing library, which is very handy).
But the main benefit is the attack surface is greatly reduced when running a unikernel. Also we use way less resources and get really good perf.
For instance, deploying a complex Python application was hell, for lack of proper packaging. Using Vagrant was easy, but the image was huge (full system) and the software slow (full virtualization), among other problems. Containers like LXC and Docker were a bit easier to setup, much smaller, almost as performant as native packaging, and with a larger spectrum of features for sharing things with the host (e.g. overlay mounts).
No, it does not make it "very difficult".
And like other comments here grumble - this rationale is essentially a sanctification of the sentiment of "It builds and runs on my system and I can't be bothered to make fewer assumptions so that it runs on yours".
still, i use it every day and i don't see what replaces it. every "docker killer" solves one problem while ignoring the 50 things docker does well enough.
Buying more RAM for your server or only touching a select few images that are run most often is also a way to make things work. It might not be the most elegant software engineering approach, but it just works.
These are pretty handy to use
I want it not to just be invisible but to be missing. If you have kubernetes, including locally with k3s or similar, it won't be used to run containers anyway. However it still often is used to build OCI images. Podman can fill that gap. It has a Containerfile format that is the same syntax but simpler than the Docker builds, which now provides build orchestration features similar to earthly.dev which I think are better kept separate.
installing docker desktop on my personal laptop permanently bricked it, right in the middle of chip/memory shortage. thanks docker!!!
Linux user space decided to try and share dependencies. Docker obliterates this design goal by shipping dependencies, but stuffing them into the filesystem as-if they were shared.
If you’re going to do this then a far far far simpler solution is to just link statically or ship dependencies adjacent to the binary. (Aka what windows does). Replicating a faux “shared” filesystem is a gross hack.
This is a distinctly Linux problem. Windows software doesn’t typically have this issue. Because programs ship their dependencies and then work.
Docker is one way to ship dependencies. So it’s not the worst solution in the world. But I swear it’s a bad solution. My blood boils with righteous fury anytime anyone on my team mentions they have a 15 minute docker build step. And don’t you damn dare say the fix to Docker being slow is to add more layers of complexity with hierarchical Docker images ohmygodiswear. Running a computer program does not have to be hard I promise!!
The more recent half of my career has been more focused on ML and now robotics. Python ML is absolute clusterfuck. It is close to getting resolved with UV and Pixi. The trick there is to include your damn dependencies… via symlink to a shared cache.
Any program or pipeline that relies on whatever arbitrary ass version of Python is installed on the system can die in a fire.
That’s mostly about deploying. We can also talk about build systems.
The one true build system path is a monorepo that contains your damn dependencies. Anything else is wrong and evil.
I’m also spicy and think that if your build system can’t crosscompile then it sucks. It’s trivial to crosscompile for Windows from Linux because Windows doesn’t suck (in this regard). It almost impossible to crosscompile to Linux from Windows because Linux userspace is a bad, broken, failed design. However Andrew Kelley is a patron saint and Zig makes it feasible.
Use a monorepo, pretend the system environment doesn’t exist, link statically/ship adjacent so/dll.
Docker clearly addresses a real problem (that Linux userspace has failed). But Docker is a bad hack. The concept of trying to share libraries at the system level has objectively failed. The correct thing to do is to not do that, and don’t fake a system to do it.
Windows may suck for a lot of reasons. But boy howdy is it a whole lot more reliable than Linux at running computer programs.
Isn't composefs[1] aiming to do basically just that?
Part of it is ignorance. I write a lot of C++. They support C++…. but with all kinds of restrictions wrt to memory and threading?
Doesn’t seem like a particularly interesting angle to me.
Personally, I think docker is dumb, so is AppImage, so is FlatPak, so are VMs… honestly, it’s all dumb. We all like these various things because they solve problems, but they don’t actually solve anything. They work around issues instead. We end up with abstractions and orchestrations of docker, handling docker containers running inside of VMs, on top of hardware we cannot know, see, control, or inspect. The containers are now just a way to offer shared hosting at a price premium with complex and expensive software deployment methods. We are charged extortionate prices at every step, and we accept it because it’s convenient, because these methods make certain problems go away, and because if we want money, investors expect to see “industry standards.”
There’s another one, at least IMHO, that this entire stack from the bottom up is designed wrong and every day we as a society continue marching down this path we’re just accumulating more technical debt. Pretty much every time you find the solution to be, “ok so we’ll wrap the whole thing and then…” something is deeply wrong and you’re borrowing from the future a debt that must come due. Energy is not free. We tend to treat compute like it is.
Maybe I’m in a big club but I have a vision for a radically different architecture that fixes all of this and I wish that got 1/2 the attention these bandaids did. Plan 9 is an example of the theme if not the particular set of solutions I’m referring to.
Is there any insight into this, I would have thought the opposite where developers on the platform that made docker succeed are given first preview of features.
> It is also something developers seem to enjoy using
Count me out.
Docker images come in layers, which may or may not change depending on your release, and may or may not be shared across services.
Docker made convenient distribute some functionalities which were planned as stack of services rather than packaging appropriately for each distribution and handling to an administrator the configuration. That’s it. And it has many inconveniences. And Linux as well as BSD had containers before and chroots and many other things.