Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Creates a Docker-Like Container For Windows
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.
Solaris Zones comes to Windows.
Welcome to 2005.
Why am I the only one completely unimpressed with Docker? It feels like a hacked together Solaris to me .... no thanks, I'll take the real deal.
And then every single application has to run its own security updates.
After all, VMs were really only required for Windows where seperation of programs and libraries and process filesystem access restrictions was especially problematic compared to *nix. Now Windows looks like its finally dragged itself into the 1990s could VMs become a solution for niche edge case problems once more?
Shared libraries are shared also so that you would be able to update the library without updating all applications that use it.
By the way, when virtualizing servers you could also create file system instances using a copy-on-write filesystem, in which case you would be able to get self-contained instances with the least amount of copying necessary.
Under Linux, you could use FUSE to get CoW on top of a underlying filesystem that doesn't support it.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
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.
Before we got all hung up on patents and copyrights, computer software technologies were freely copied/stolen right and left. Often gaining interesting and useful new capabilities in the process.
Back then, it was common to repeat Newton's quote that he saw further because he stood on the "shoulders of giants". And to sourly observe that programmers more often stood on each other's feet.
These days, you often have to, lest lawyers descend upon you and pick your bones.
It's one reason open-source software is now so popular. For whatever illusory protection against indemnification closed-source products might project, the open-source ones at least won't sure you. Unless you violate the basic terms of sharing, anyway.
Vs. a bunch of people afraid to apply the patch of openSSL in fear that it would break all the applications in one swoop
of having up Update Open SSL on ever virtual system that is running a different application?
Compared to a few decades ago. Package update systems have gotten much better.
So the package system will know that Application A, B, C, D use OpenSSL and there is an open SSLPatch and Application A, B, C, had verififed that it worked, so A,B,C will get the push to fix those parts.
I stated no Shared Libaries, or DLL... I didn't say we can't use libraries. They are just not shared across the entire OS.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.