Sorry if this is obvious somewhere, but i have to ask: Will this allow me on windows to pull a linux-based image (ubuntu for example) and run it on the windows platform or pull a windows based image and run it on the linux docker platform host?
You can do this today with boot2docker (running a linux VM behind the scenes)
> pull a windows based image and run it on the linux docker platform host?
I suppose the opposite of what I said could be true using something like KVM, but not a use case we are seeing a lot of right now.
The goal is:
Package your Windows app in a docker container, use same tooling you would otherwise use to deploy to a docker engine running on a Windows host
Package your Linux app in a docker container, use same tooling you would otherwise use to deploy to a docker engine running on a Linux host.
Package your Windows app in a docker container, use same tooling you would otherwise use to deploy to a docker engine running on a Linux host and vice versa? If not initially is that an ultimate goal?
There are no current goals to make Linux executables run natively in windows and vice versa.
1. Native Mac OS X support (so Mac Apps can also be in containers) 2. Being able to mix container operating systems with other host operating systems.
If that ever happens then operating systems and their versions would pretty much no longer matter; you could run anything anywhere without compatibility issues. I feel like this is something that has to eventually happen no matter what I'm just always curious what form(s) it will take.
Are there Mac servers out there you want to run apps on? Or just consumer apps you want to run on your mac? Curious about the use case!
> Being able to mix container operating systems with other host operating systems.
VMs are that abstraction today. I think we can do better going forward, but still a lot to do with what we currently have planned.
Maybe they haven't but I feel like Apple has abandoned the Mac OS X Server so no apps at least for me in that case but I think consumer apps would be a pretty cool use case.
> VMs are that abstraction today. I think we can do better going forward, but still a lot to do with what we currently have planned.
Roger; thanks!
This appears to be aimed at SOHO users and not racks and racks of servers in a data centre.
I saw this... https://www.docker.com/community/governance/ but couldn't find any more information...
The first DGAB meeting is on 10/28, where we will propose a different way of working based on all of the feedback.
Stay tuned. We'll have a lot on this in the upcoming weeks.
Having some sort of translation that's not a VM as a part of the distribution mechanism doesn't make much sense, and breaking the portability of Docker comes at a significant cost.
I struggle to see how to make that work cleanly.
"Docker will be able to use either Windows Server or Linux with the same growing Docker ecosystem of users, applications and tools." (emphasis mine)
"bringing together Windows Server and Linux"
"making available some of the best images for Windows Server and Linux."
http://news.microsoft.com/2014/10/15/DockerPR/
Of course, it's hard to talk definitively about something that doesn't exist yet.
UPDATE: It makes more sense after reading this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8460164
Is there a missing comma in each sentence of the goal? It seems like there should be one after "use" or after "engine":
1) [after "use"] Package [on a Windows client] your Windows app in a docker container, use same tooling you would otherwise use [on a linux client], to deploy to a docker engine running on a Windows host Package [on a Windows client] your Linux app in a docker container, use same tooling you would otherwise use [on a linux client], to deploy to a docker engine running on a Linux host.
2) [after "use"] Package your Windows app in a docker container, use same tooling you would otherwise use to deploy to a docker engine [running on Windows or Linux], running [the packaging step] on a Windows host Package your Linux app in a docker container, use same tooling you would otherwise use to deploy to a docker engine [running on Windows or Linux], running [the packaging step] on a Linux host.
I added the implications I understood to highlight the difference the comma placement makes. If there is no comma it's pretty ambiguous / confusing to me on which platform the docker engine is running. I believe from this post of yours that I have misunderstood the announcement, and that windows apps will be able to be made into docker containers that can only run on windows docker engines.
I'm sorry to hear that, we will work to do better.
> and that windows apps will be able to be made into docker containers that can only run on windows docker engines.
This is correct. There's also a thread on how, to the user of docker who just wants to `docker run` something, the distinction doesn't really matter in the end
Containers share a kernel, this would make it impossible. However, with things like boot2docker (25MB Linux distro), this makes it really leight-weight/easy to deploy into a VM and run that way.