Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Partners With Docker
rjmarvin writes Docker is teaming up with Microsoft to bring its open container technology to the next release of Windows Server. Docker Engine will work with the next release of Windows Server and images will be available in Docker Hub, which will also integrate directly into Microsoft Azure. The partnership moves Docker beyond Linux for the first time with new multi-container application capabilities for cloud and enterprise developers.
um. windows != linux
about there being something "microsoft" in my pants.
Pants.
Why is Microsoft partnering with a Jeans brand? And how much did Docker pay to post a link to their content-free press release on the front page of Slashdot?
please elaborate ...
just another systemd troll
I speak fluent cunt, allow me to translate. When GP said:
What he meant to say was:
"I'm used to doing things a certain way, and I hate when other people come along and improve or change a system I'm used to using. Because of that, I will senselessly parrot the same bullshit talking points about things I don't understand as if they're fact, all over the web."
Is that more clear?
You don't "partner" with Microsoft. You "put on a choke chain" for Microsoft.
Our favorite company can finally put out a marketing campaign truly worthy of their name:
"Microsoft is pants."
Great....now my khakis are going to have a back door so the NSA can have it's way.
Today must be the first april!
Yeah, that helps, but I'd like to hear from the original poster, to be honest.
Docker = Mens apparel company
Open Container = Open and ready-to-drink beer usually found in a moving vehicle
Docker Engine = Something that goes "vrooom" in your pants
Images = pictures
Docker Hub = a place to connect your pants with people
Azure = bright blue color, often associated with a sky
A men’s apparel company is teaming up with Microsoft to bring its ready-to-drink beer technology to the next server in the window. Penises will work with the server and pictures of everything will be available while people share experiences with each other’s pants. The penises and pants will also integrate directly into uh-hem “Blue stuff”. The partnership moves pants n shit away from Linux for the first time. With new multi-ready-to-drink beers technology clouds will consume enterprise developers.
Let's make like a bird... and get the flock outta here.
Docker heavily relies on linux kernel features and on a stable base OS, windows has neither.
This story doesn't seem to make sense.
Your right of the change part. If a change is an improvement depends on use cases.
I can think of multiple use case where docker of systemd are not an improvement.(and multiple ones that they are)
Application containers are not anti-unix. Nor were virtual machines, or chroot jails before them.
Say it isn't so.
... I'd actually rather see Docker in the user space for Windows. There are zillions of Windows applications that would benefit from Docker-isation - being able to download things off the Internet and more safely run them is something I've wanted for ages.
There are various application sandbox things for Windows (e.g., Sandboxie) but I haven't seen anything open source that is as reliable and commonly used as Docker seems to be.
I think it'd be OK on the server side as well, but I'd love to be able to download nice jailed Docker versions of most Windows apps so I can run them without having to worry too much about what they're doing in my userspace.
How long is it going to be before MS stabs these guys in the back?
I've had trouble thinking of Docker as anything but a, fairly thin, wrapper to LXC. When Docker announced a move to support BSD, that made sense, because of the existence of jails. LXC and jails obviously have a fair bit of over-lapping functionality, so supporting the BSDs isn't a huge leap...but Windows? Microsoft must have a team well into work on containerization, otherwise this new partnership would have to implement everything from scratch. And given the mayhem that cgroups brought to Linux, I can't see that happening quickly.
Docker is sort of an extremely lightweight virtual machines system.
Docker organizes software into "containers". Each container has a complete set of libraries and files, and each container is isolated from the rest of the system. Thus if you need a specific and touchy set of libraries to run Software X, and you need a different specific and touchy set of libraries to run Software Y, you can simply make two containers and run them side by side.
As I understand it, Docker container images use a "snapshots" system to store changes; so the two containers for Software X and Software Y will together be much smaller than two VM images would be.
Using Docker, if developers make a server-side application, they can then hand a container over to production for deployment, and everyone can be confident that the application will run the same in production as it ran in development. (Of course it would still be possible to break things, for example by having different data in the production database compared to the dev test database.) Or, developers could run containers on their laptops and expect them to run the same as on the servers in the office.
Unlike VMs, the Docker containers don't run their own kernels. So you can't run a Linux server with Docker that in turn runs OpenBSD in a container.
As I understand it, many people use Docker to run a single process per container. The web server in one container, the email server in another, the SSH server in another, etc. One use case: if you have a web site hosted in the cloud, and the Slashdot effect starts slamming on the web site, the cloud hosting service could spin up another 500 instances of the web site (500 fresh instances of the Docker container, each container running a single process, the web server).
I talked to an expert sysadmin, and he told me "This is the future." I'm going to set up a Docker server at home and learn my way around it.
https://www.docker.com/whatisdocker/
My reading of the press release is that Microsoft is going to (a) implement the Docker APIs for Windows, so that Windows server applications can be container-ized; and (b) add the ability to run Linux containers. The latter is not implausible; Windows NT has always had so-called "personalities" and Posix has been available as a personality for decades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_kernel#NT_kernel
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Forgot to mention registry. What I suspect is a mini registry is universally shared with file locations and settings another program that allows small writes to individual entries. So a registry lookup hits two databases not just one.
How soon will it be before Microsoft 'invents' its own version of Docker and starts charging Open Docker for using Microsoft patented technology?
Looks like you hit a nerve there with the shills.
FYI docker doesn't have much to do with LXC these days. Although LXC is still available as a backend, docker defaults to either aufs or devicemapper depending on system.
Thanks, we needed some help from a cunning linguist.
I love docker, its great to work with, but i have one concern with its use of dockerhub, the worse case scenario being somebody like the NSA getting in there and attaching to the os integration libs in the os api stubs. Suddeny you get all your docker containers being vulnerable and phoning home. Has anybody looked at wether that could be a problem. It would be a fat juicy target for them. People are putting a lot of trust in a bunch of images that are outside of thier control and verification.
Would it not have made more sense to port wine to windows and make portable apps in the form of a WINEPREFIX?
If the host OS is compromised all the containers are compromised. But remember this was a Linux solution so the host OS is Linux. So the problem is the same with or without Docker.
Well, whatever Docker did that was good, MS is going to ruin it.
Be seeing you...
When I first heard about Docker, it looked to me like it was a set of tools to simplify the setup and management of chroots. But this announcement makes it look like there may be more to it. Can someone explain to me the difference between a docker container and a chroot?
this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice
As LXC grew-up, it's clear that its ultra-light containerization (made easy by Docker) is set to give Linux programs portability & automatic multi-tenant. It accomplishes the same as VMs but with better performance (wiser paging and threading) and far less space used. It's poised to take-over the VM world and Azure must react (especially since Windows can't do this, or perhaps can but not easily).
Easy Linux Containerization is a blow to Azure and to Windows which just looks bigger and slower now. All the while Linux catches-up in the self-compatibility space (between distros).