Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Creates a Docker-Like Container For Windows

Posted by samzenpus on from the imitation-is-the-sincerest-form-of-flattery dept.

angry tapir writes Hoping to build on the success of Docker-based Linux containers, Microsoft has developed a container technology to run on its Windows Server operating system. The Windows Server Container can be used to package an application so it can be easily moved across different servers. It uses a similar approach to Docker's, in that all the containers running on a single server all share the same operating system kernel, making them smaller and more responsive than standard virtual machines.

7 of 95 comments (clear)

  1. Or a simple solution. by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The is to solve the problem is simple. Keep the apps self contained. No shared libraries or dll.
    To move the package you just move the directory containing the app to an other location.
    Some will say that is how Macs do it. But I would go further and say that is how it was done in DOS.
    The shared library is an out of date concept, while sounds good when storage was expensive, today we are virtualizing full platforms just to prevent version incomparably.
    What may be a little bonus is to give application/process level networking settings so you can just virtual network your app from the OS

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Or a simple solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Man, you really know what you're talking about!

      DLL files can be distributed with and loaded from the same directory as EXE files.
      You completely forgot Registry settings, buuuuudddy.

      I got a simple solution! Let's statically link everything and use config files everywhere. That's how things were really done in DOS. Now be honest: you've never actually used DOS, have you?

    2. Re:Or a simple solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, right. Every app has its own copy of OpenSSL. With its own set of vulnerabilities. Thankyouverymuch.

      Why does this "industry" have to repeat every error every 5-10 years? Don't we have memories?

    3. Re:Or a simple solution. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The is to solve the problem is simple. Keep the apps self contained. No shared libraries or dll.

      That's unnecessary. One look in /opt and I can see plenty of packages which have .so files. They install just fine anywhere.

      The shared library is an out of date concept, while sounds good when storage was expensive, today we are virtualizing full platforms just to prevent version incomparably.

      Nope, they're still a good idea which is why VMs are working on memory deduplication. If every tool on Linux was statically linked, you'd massively bloat the RAM foorptint. It makes sense for programs outside the package manager to be self-contained, but having the managed ones abandon .so files would be a massively regressive step.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:Or a simple solution. by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No we don't. The hands on votec schools don't teach industry history and if you look at that stack overflow poll from a few days ago it looks like the majority of people only spend about 15 years in software development. So once every 10 years or so the majority of developers are two young to know better when 'hard learned lesson' is called into question by one of the rockstars.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    5. Re:Or a simple solution. by organgtool · · Score: 5, Insightful
      How was this modded insightful?!

      The shared library is an out of date concept

      No, it is used by every major system today for very good reasons.

      Some will say that is how Macs do it

      Macs do have shared libraries - the files have a .dylib file extension.

      sounds good when storage was expensive

      Statically linked apps don't just take up orders of magnitude more storage, but also significantly more memory. Not only that, but a critical security update to one library requires recompiling and redeploying ALL of the apps that use that library.

      today we are virtualizing full platforms just to prevent version incomparably

      There are tons of reasons to virtualize that have nothing to do with version compatibility or network security.

      Since you seem so committed to statically linking apps, I suggest you go through the Linux From Scratch project and statically compile everything. Then, deploy it to an enterprise environment that requires five-nines uptime as well as all security updates. Be sure to set up a video camera so that I can watch with a bug bucket of popcorn.

  2. Yet again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Microsoft copies someone else. In Microsoft language,

    copying==innovation

    To be fair, every company copies to some extent. It's just that nobody spins it as much as Microsoft.