Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Docker Images To Be Based On Alpine Linux (brianchristner.io)

Posted by timothy on from the blaupunkt-no-longer-available dept.

New submitter Tenebrousedge writes: Docker container sizes continue a race to the bottom with a couple of environments weighing in at less than 10MB. Following on the heels of this week's story regarding small images based on Alpine Linux, it appears that the official Docker images will be moving from Debian/Ubuntu to Alpine Linux in the near future. How low will they go?

86 comments

  1. Ubuntu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't the whole point of Docker that you can get everything up and running by just apt-getting an old unsupported version of whatever package you need directly in the Dockerfile and then never ever upgrade it?

    1. Re:Ubuntu by Lennie · · Score: 1

      The point is pulling an application.

      How the people that made the docker image you are using created their Docker image doesn't matter much.

      You can still use Debian/Ubuntu as the base of _your_ Docker images.

      These are just the official Docker images. I can see how that makes sense for something like a MySQL Docker image. You just want it to run the database server.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    2. Re:Ubuntu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But in practice the applications don't update this base OS, so the copy of openssl that is loaded into memory when the app launches will be vulnerable since there is no practical way to automatically keep them updated. The app vendor would have to basically rebuild the image every time a single package would have to be updated.

    3. Re:Ubuntu by Lennie · · Score: 1

      There are already tools to detect that, at least some of them are FOSS:
      https://www.alfresco.com/blogs...

      For example this one is open source:
      https://coreos.com/blog/vulner...

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    4. Re: Ubuntu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should you have tools for it? The major distros send out security patches almost daily. This is not something that you can expect to rev once a year or so. You need to be ready to apply updates every single day for anon-trivial image and at least a couple of times per month for simpler images.

    5. Re: Ubuntu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same people aren't using Ubuntu in production. This is the distro that would kill -9 MySQL on a reboot if it took too long to commit to disk. What a joke

    6. Re: Ubuntu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That "feature" is in all the mysql SysV init scripts not just on Ubuntu.

    7. Re: Ubuntu by Lennie · · Score: 1

      I think the idea behind the tools is to catch stuff just in case something gets forgotten.

      You can easily do updates/build of Docker containers, as long as you automated and do 12 factor apps.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    8. Re:Ubuntu by samkass · · Score: 1

      But in practice the applications don't update this base OS, so the copy of openssl that is loaded into memory when the app launches will be vulnerable since there is no practical way to automatically keep them updated. The app vendor would have to basically rebuild the image every time a single package would have to be updated.

      First of all, there's often little reason to even include OpenSSL in your container. You can attach to it through Docker. And only expose ports your app uses. The attack vector is reduced. Secondly, practices around containers are definitely evolving, so what is "in practice" now isn't necessarily the way it will always be.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    9. Re: Ubuntu by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      If I didn't misunderstand them, keeping the common core up to date was one of the goals behind Red Hat's Project Atomic.

    10. Re:Ubuntu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are thinking about it all wrong. Containers ARE the package. They should be idempotent, which is to say you should never be updating them. You just build a new one and distribute that. Ideally you'd build the container from binary archives and avoid the bloat of a package manager entirely.

  2. Newbie question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Alpine Linux doesn't use systemd. I've seen a lot of polarized views in comments. What is systemd, how is it different, and is it good or bad that Alpine Linux doesn't use it?

    1. Re:Newbie question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Obvious troll comment is obvious.

    2. Re: Newbie question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SystemD is a system daemon, it's different by being unnecessary and getting in the way and becoming mandatory, and anything that doesn't have it is a good thing.

    3. Re:Newbie question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Systemd is a new init system whose primary advantage is that it promises to unify the behavior of services running on different linux distros. The problem that a lot of people (including myself) have with it is that since it unifies behavior, you lose choice in how you configure that behavior. In my organisation we've been using Debian for _years_ and upgrading our servers to the latest version has only ever involved minor tweaks to our config scripts. With Debian 8's systemd, we pretty much have to rewrite it all from scratch, which is going to be a huge, dangerous project. Of course, the trend of history is toward automation and standardization, but I think that systemd is too ambitious and too early. Only time will tell though.

      I hadn't heard of Alpine Linux before today, being an old Debian guy. Besides the whole systemd thing, I've had the sense that Debian was loosing its way for a while and have been looking around for something to replace it when Debian7 reaches EOL. As a grey beard I want something light-weight and without systemd, but as a practical grey beard I want something stable, that I'll be able to run for another decade. So far, CentOS seemed to be the way of the future for my organization, although it makes me vomit in the back of my throat a little to go closer to the root of the systemd tree.

      Make no mistake, though, Docker is the way of the future and will put a lot of people in this forum out of a job. If Alpine has the backing of Docker, it might be the linux distro of the future. It has some really interesting features, like the ability to save all of your system configuration into a package that you can install on other systems via the package manager. That's really cool, and a neat alternative to puppet. I'm not very happy that it isn't binary compatible with stuff built using glibc (which means that commercial software will be limited), and AFAICT it doesn't have some of the dev tools I like to use, but I think this will be a major contender soon.

      I'll be watching it. It might

    4. Re:Newbie question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      systemd is the glue that holds Linux together. Call me a SJW, but I've been thinking about something really unfair. Linux should really be called GNU/systemd/Linux as one is nothing without the others.

    5. Re:Newbie question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Calling You an SJW is without merit, as Your post has nothing to do with social justice.
      Instead, I shall call You an assbandit for calling my system to be a "nothing" without systemd. And a total idiot for claiming that GNU is nothing without Linux. And that Linux is nothing without GNU. In short, fuck off and educate Yourself.

    6. Re:Newbie question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of Linux systems that do without either GNU or systemd, just as there are a number of systems that have GNU but do without Linux.

    7. Re:Newbie question by fpoling · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I suspect docker is the only real contender to the total systemd domination. I liked systemd until I realized how much fragility it brings to the system with all those supposedly nice dependencies between services. The problem is that when one of the dependencies fails, the rest stops starting/shutting down/working when in fact the failure can be very much transient. So I started to like how docker resists supporting full-featured container dependencies. It essentially requires for containers to deal with connection failures when talking to other containers making the whole setup much more robust. As a bonus it becomes much easier to move containers to other machines making the setup scalable.

      The move to Alpine is nice in that respect as it it ensures that the packages to build containers on do not have explicit or implicit dependencies on the presence of systemd and so is much more suitable for docker.

    8. Re:Newbie question by F.Ultra · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The unification with systemd is so that you as a daemon developer only have to write one single unit file that then will work across all different distributions that use systemd, it has nothing to do with limiting your choice in configuration. There should be no less choice in configuration of systemd for you as an administrator than what you already have with SysVInit. You can run what ever scripts from the unit files that you want. I would very much like to hear why you think that systemd lessens your configurability.

    9. Re: Newbie question by zaphirplane · · Score: 1

      How so when the daemons have different names across distributions httpd Apache2 store the preferences in different locations and the configuration in a different location. Standardizing those things have nothing to do with systemd

    10. Re:Newbie question by driblio · · Score: 1

      Can you name one distro with gnu?

    11. Re: Newbie question by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      Daemons do not have different names across distributions, the Apache2 daemon is httpd regardless of distribution. However as you point out configuration locations can and will vary and also package names (but package names has nothing to do with systemd). If we look at the systemd unit file for Apache2 from RHEL7 there is these two lines:

      EnvironmentFile=/etc/sysconfig/httpd
      ExecStart=/usr/sbin/httpd $OPTIONS -DFOREGROUND

      So what happens here is that the unit file is the same regardless of distribution and then the distribution sets it's configuration locations into the /etc/sysconfig/httpd file by setting $OPTIONS. This way there can be a unified unit file but still differences between distributions. Because to have unified unit files is one of the goals of systemd, the thought is to have a central shared repository of unit files from which the various distributions then simply can sync whenever they update systemd (or when the feel like updating their unit files) without putting the burden on each maintainer/developer to create a distribution specific init script which is the case with SysV.

    12. Re:Newbie question by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Debian GNU/HURD

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    13. Re:Newbie question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it stopped at that, many would not mind.

      but when you have user space programs that depend specifically on on a certain binary sitting as pid1, then people balk.

      If systemd was about providing a defined unit file format, and that was it. No problem.

      but systemd the project is now systemd-the-binary, logind, networkd, a dhcp client, a dns client (now with DNSSEC support that is likely to be insecure), a cron replacement, inetd replacement, and the list keeps growing.

      And if one of your daemons depends on any of those, you also have to perform a init-ectomy on your install.

      The only people that could be enthralled by all this are those that are humping Amazons AWS leg 24/7, and think that uptime just depend on them spinning up new instances fast enough.

    14. Re:Newbie question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RancherOS appears to be what people want since it uses Docker itself to boot.

      As far as the future Microservices is were everything appears to be headed.

    15. Re:Newbie question by BitZtream · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Make no mistake, though, Docker is the way of the future and will put a lot of people in this forum out of a job.

      Yea, you're not really a grey beard if you make stupid statements like that.

      Adding another layer of virtualization to our existing stack with several layers already in it isn't going to magically make things better.

      In the last 10 years I've seen the same web server go from running on bare metal to running under 4 layers of hypervisor by the time you get to the docker container ... and you know what ... now that server farm takes 3 times as many people to run because you still need the apache guys ... and you still need the linux guys ... but now you need the docker guys, the vmware guys, and somebody who can coordinate the whole fucking mess.

      So lets look at this we went from:

      Hardware -> Linux -> AppVM running Apache (1 layer of address translation, the AppVM/Linux kernel boundary)

      to

      Hardware -> Linux -> KVM -> Linux -> Docker -> Linux -> AppVM running Apache (thats 5 layers of translation ... Yes, thats REALLY what most people using Docker will do)

      Yea, thats definitely going to put people out of work ... its easy to understand.

      Docker is another example of people doing something because they figured out how to do it, not because they actually should do it. Worse still, Docker is a solution to the fact that Linux is a mess from a file system perspective where everyone just dumps all their bins, system or 3rd party all in the same directories, all together. And then they make fun of Windows like System32 is different than /usr/lib on any given Linux box. System or app config files ... ALL of them are in /etc ... WTF? You know theres this /usr/local idea right? You know that you can put libs in the same directory as the application and then you don't have to run a VM to get the same sort of separation right? I mean seriously, you can't call yourself a grey beard and say Docker is good at the same time, you just admit you have no fucking clue how to be an admin or how docker works.

      And you're conflating it with systemd? Do you not have any idea what either one of them are?

      Yea, I'm ranting. People who think Docker is good are idiots, typically developers trying to be sys admins, or 'DevOps' as they call it ... and they're clueless and don't understand wtf they are doing. Its not Dockers fault. 'Zones' are something Solaris has had for years, and they weren't new when Solaris did it. Mainframes have had the concept since the 70s. The problem devs who don't know when and where to use them are just throwing them all over the place

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    16. Re: Newbie question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes they do. Your example is perfect: httpd in Debian is called apache2.

    17. Re:Newbie question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, dude, you completely mis-read the GP. Take a pill and read it again.

    18. Re: Newbie question by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      So it seams, looks like I spoke too soon. Has this been changed because I remember (but of course that memory can be false) that apache2 was /usr/sbin/httpd in Debian back in the day (it's several years since I used either Debian nor Apache). Either way, sorry for speaking while uninformed.

    19. Re:Newbie question by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      Which user space applications depends on a specific binary being pid 1? And for the other utilities in the systemd suite, why is it seen as a major problem that you get more choices for which software to run? Did you get just as upset when lighttpd or nginx where created since Apache should be the only piece of software that we need?

    20. Re:Newbie question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it has nothing to do with limiting your choice in configuration.

      Apart from your choice over whether to have systemd (and its whole tribe of dependencies) in the first place.

    21. Re:Newbie question by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      So why was it no problem that most distributions forced SysV on you, or that Ubuntu forced upstart on you? In fact there are tons of software that are forced on me by a distribution, be it grub, libc, or which version of gcc they used to compile the binaries with (not to mention which cflags they used). That it comes as default does not meant that you cannot use another init system if you want, all SysV scripts are still there.

    22. Re:Newbie question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GDM > logind > systemd-pid1.

    23. Re: Newbie question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think apache version 1 was either httpd or was a direct link. Apache version 2 was immediately called apache2 because it wanted to be installed on the same computer as apache version 1.

    24. Re: Newbie question by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      Think you are right, must have been since apache 1 I remember this, I switched to lighttpd when it came and never looked back :)

    25. Re:Newbie question by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      That is not a dependency on a specific pid 1 binary, that is a dependency on a functionality. How else do you think that they solved GDM on BSD, Solaris et al?

    26. Re:Newbie question by bigtreeman · · Score: 1

      Alpine doesn't have systemd

      --
      Go well
    27. Re:Newbie question by bigtreeman · · Score: 1

      and again alpine doesn't have systemd
      no gnome yeah

      --
      Go well
    28. Re:Newbie question by bigtreeman · · Score: 1

      Thanks F.Ultra
      Alpine is poorly configured and you need to fiddle with those lovely script files to get some parts firing.
      You would be absolutely lost with systemd.
      Not every distro works exactly the same, that's why we have init scripts.

      --
      Go well
    29. Re:Newbie question by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      Why would you be lost with very simple unit files as compared with lengthy and complex init scripts? There is no need to do distribution specific unit files since there is no difference there between distributions, file locations might differ but that is handled by configuration files and not by unit files. That each distribution needs their own init scripts is the problem, not the solution.

  3. why no SLS by 0xdeaddead · · Score: 1

    a.out and static binaries, go with linux 0.12. everything since has been bloated crap.

    1. Re:why no SLS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      a.out and static binaries, go with linux 0.12. everything since has been bloated crap.

      Pants are so overrated. Diapers all the way baby!

  4. Jails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You could run in a Jail on BSD, and ship pretty much no OS at all. Thats the future of containers (and 20 year old tech too...)

    1. Re:Jails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, Solaris has had that too since like forever.

    2. Re:Jails by CrashNBrn · · Score: 2

      Different Use Case, I believe.
      Jail --> Honking Big Ass Server running a bunch of restricted processes. While said process is running self-contained, it's not easily transferable at all.
      DockerSelf-contained program (that can be plugged into many different systems now). Runs self-contained. Easily transferable, everywhere, anytime.

      Think something like nGinx running as a proxy front-end, which could pass thru to servers, vms, dockers on a server, etc. Or using docker images of different configurations during development.

      Jails just don't provide the same functionality beyond limiting a process in a very complicated manner.

    3. Re:Jails by Celarent+Darii · · Score: 2

      Jail --> Honking Big Ass Server running a bunch of restricted processes. While said process is running self-contained, it's not easily transferable at all.

      You obviously never used jails. You can take a FreeBSD jail, archive and transfer it to any other server quite easily. For instance, with a running jail using ezjail-admin [there are actually many ways to do this] :

      # ezjail-admin stop mysql-jail

      # ezjail-admin archive mysql-jail

      The archive file will be saved [according to configuration] in /usr/jails/mysql-jail.tar.gz To transfer to another server, just copy this file to another server and do:

      # ezjail-admin create -a /usr/jails/ezjail_archives/mysql-jail.tar.gz transferred-jail 192.168.1.201

      # ezjail-admin start transferred-jail

      There are even better options using zfs-send and the like, which can copy over a snapshot of the current file system to the server. There are also many advantages to jails that docker simply doesn't have, but I will let other commentors write about them. FreeBSD jails are vastly superior in my humble opinion and are really docker done right. However, in the Linux world docker is definitely a very nice tool

    4. Re:Jails by jean-guy69 · · Score: 1

      Or an Illumos Zone.. Illumos being a fork of OpenSolaris.
      Even better, you can run Linux inside an Zone on SmartOS, an Illumos distribution, via system call translation..
      And Smartdatacenter+ sdc-docker = SmartOS based IaaS solution with docker support..
      Smartdatacenter and SmartOS are made by Joyent, everything is opensource.
      That's what they use to power their public cloud..
      Truly an hidden gem, as other Joyent opensource stuff like manta..

    5. Re: Jails by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

      There are many disadvantages to docker

      --
      http://saveie6.com/
  5. Good FK SYSTEMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fk Systemd. (Alpine doesn't use it)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Say no to the SJW cancer that is systemd, gtk3, etc

  6. http://dockersl.im by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    DockerSlim shrinks standard Ubuntu containers by 30X.

    Sample images (built with the standard Ubuntu 14.04 base image):

    nodejs app container: 431.7 MB => 14.22 MB

    python app container: 433.1 MB => 15.97 MB

    ruby app container: 406.2 MB => 13.66 MB

    java app container: 743.6 MB => 100.3 MB (yes, it's a bit bigger than others :-))

  7. Summaries, how do they work? by bgarcia · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, WTF is docker? I thought docker was some Apple UI concept, but I have no idea what it is in Linux.

    --
    I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
    1. Re:Summaries, how do they work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Really? You've never heard of Docker? Docker is a system that allows you to build "containers" for an application that contain all of its dependencies. Then you can deploy it on a machine where it runs as a VM, using its local copy of software and configuration if there is one, or the host's copy if not. It allows you to package applications that can run on any compatible server without interfering with other applications on that server. When you need to spin up a new machine, you can just copy the container over and the application and all of its configuration is automagically moved. It's awesome.

      In the short term, Docker is going to change the way that every Linux system is administered. It will change the way that every Linux application is deployed. In the longer term, Docker will finally fulfill the promise of "write once, run everywhere"... linux, unix, windows, android; it won't matter any more. Docker is going to change the world.

    2. Re:Summaries, how do they work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's like totally cool man, like imagine your containers are on a ship that sails the tubes of the interwebs, docker is the automated robot captain who guides the ship into port and fastens the ropes to the wharf and begins the cranes that turn the containers into packages on the SYSTEM!

    3. Re: Summaries, how do they work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In other words, its nothing new, but now with new added lack of security oversight because administration is hard and therefore worthless in todays race to the bottom.

    4. Re:Summaries, how do they work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's like portable apps for linux?

    5. Re: Summaries, how do they work? by Junta · · Score: 4, Informative

      The novelty comes from having a lot of tools to quickly maintain images and such. As you say, there's also 'dockerhub' to let you download canned application complete with OS libraries. The former I find to be handy, the latter I find problematic.

      On the one hand, it can be a handy resource to dive into something to have a hands on example as you learn to deal with it yourself.

      However, a few big downsides:
      -Some projects have gotten very lazy about packaging. They make a half hearted or no effort to offer up distro packages, because 'hey, docker!'. I suppose this wouldn't be so bad, except for...
      -As you say, these are various images with varying degrees of discipline in applying updates.

      Complicating matters that even if you 'trust' a particular publisher, docker's infrastructure isn't exactly thorough about things like signing images and such. Updates become gigantic, because you are updating the entire OS even if one library needs a hand.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    6. Re:Summaries, how do they work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would one want to use some binary blob with obsolete libraries to be ran in a inefficient VM? Isn't it easier to just "apt-get install " and let the system upgrades keep it and its dependencies up to date?

    7. Re: Summaries, how do they work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Errr... Lay off the sugar, dude

    8. Re:Summaries, how do they work? by Hadlock · · Score: 2

      Docker is Cloud 2.0 and is the biggest generational/watershed/great leap for IT since VMs.
       
      Even Microsoft offers docker compatibility with their new NanoServer images.
       
      This is The One Way Forward.
       
      There's one guy working on a project called Atom/Atomic/Atome or something, which is basically your app compiled in to an OS container, instead of being built on top of an OS container, but still responding similar to a docker container.
       
      In the mean time there are Linux Distros like RancherOS that let you basically run and build a server installing containers like apps. Your other option at the moment is Dokku which is sort of a Docker implementation of Heroku.
       
      Docker is a Big Fucking Deal in Silicon Valley right now and while everyone is experimenting with Docker containers in 2016, everyone who is Anyone will be deploying their product at least in some channels using Docker in 2017.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    9. Re:Summaries, how do they work? by Lord+Crc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There's one guy working on a project called Atom/Atomic/Atome or something, which is basically your app compiled in to an OS container, instead of being built on top of an OS container, but still responding similar to a docker container.

      Maybe several people doing the same, but this is one such project: http://www.includeos.org/

      Simply add one include in you C++ project and compile it into a VM image.

    10. Re:Summaries, how do they work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      First, docker VMs are incredibly efficient. The overhead is really negligible, even on older hardware. Secondly, apt-get is nice, but it affects everything on the system. What if you're using an application that uses removed features of PHP 5.2 and another that relies on new features of PHP7 and a bunch of others that are on happy on 5.6? This is a royal PITA to set up on one machine; you are better off buying seperate servers. With Docker, you can apt-get the version you need WITHIN THE CONTAINER and the problem is fixed.

      By the way, every time you apt-get, you're installing a binary blob. Just so you know.

    11. Re:Summaries, how do they work? by mjm1231 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've been running linux as my main OS on my personal computers for about a dozen years. I browse through Slashdot nearly every day. I have never heard of Docker. I work in a Windows world and don't do application development. I'm not sure why you think this would be on the radar of every single reader of Slashdot.

      This failure to explain, or even link to an explanation, of the core concept of a summary is probably one of the biggest recurring editorial failures on Slashdot. (And yeah, that's saying something.) Technology has a lot of specialized branches. I know plenty of application developers who don't know anything about networking, or network admins who don't know anything about databases or writing code, etc. etc.

      --
      Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
    12. Re:Summaries, how do they work? by sconeu · · Score: 2

      I'm surprised, too. As was said at SCALE this year.... The first rule of Docker is that you never shut the fuck up about Docker!

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    13. Re:Summaries, how do they work? by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1, Informative

      Apologies, I had thought that the links were sufficiently informative, especially given that we had an article on the same subject earlier this week. I've never used Docker personally, and have a fairly loose grasp of what it entails, but the idea of application containers has been around for something like 20 years -- BSD Jails, lxc, systemd-nspawn, Solaris zones, and whatever that CoreBoot based one is -- there was an article about it on Thursday. Half of the comments are saying how Docker is a dressed-up version of an old solved problem. With respect, I think this one is on you, although your point in general stands.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    14. Re:Summaries, how do they work? by zieroh · · Score: 1, Informative

      I'm not sure why you think this would be on the radar of every single reader of Slashdot.

      You've failed to integrate into the hive-mind, then. Honestly, if every single thing had to be explained at the lowest common denominator, slashdot would be a horrible place. Well, more horrible than it already is, anyway.

      I have never used Docker, and had only the vaguest idea what it was about. I googled it and read about it. God forbid you should have to do the same.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    15. Re: Summaries, how do they work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Panamax is suppose to make multicontainers easy.

    16. Re:Summaries, how do they work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows is suppose to be coming up with their version of containers so even if you've never heard of them, you'll soon have to be acquainted with the core idea.

    17. Re:Summaries, how do they work? by BLKMGK · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You might also be interested to know that Microsoft is adopting Docker as well. That you haven't heard of it is a little surprising because it's been talked about awhile both here and elsewhere. I too am in the Windows world nearly all of the time and had heard of it although I've yet to use it (one of my Linux based systems supports it though). It looks like pretty interesting concept although when I approach Linux guys about it the first thing they say is that it's a security nightmare

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    18. Re:Summaries, how do they work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? You've never heard of Docker? Docker is a system that allows you to build "containers" for an application that contain all of its dependencies. Then you can deploy it on a machine where it runs as a VM, using its local copy of software and configuration if there is one, or the host's copy if not. It allows you to package applications that can run on any compatible server without interfering with other applications on that server. When you need to spin up a new machine, you can just copy the container over and the application and all of its configuration is automagically moved. It's awesome.

      In the short term, Docker is going to change the way that every Linux system is administered. It will change the way that every Linux application is deployed. In the longer term, Docker will finally fulfill the promise of "write once, run everywhere"... linux, unix, windows, android; it won't matter any more. Docker is going to change the world.

      Hello, source-based distributions called. They'd like their IP back. :)
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Source-based_Linux_distributions

    19. Re: Summaries, how do they work? by coofercat · · Score: 1

      I've used Docker a bit, and I get it. I'd like to build a container of my client's Rails app + gems + ruby and just run it wherever without having to 'dirty' my system with all that stuff. I get it.

      What I don't get is why I'd want Docker for MySql or Postgres? I install that on a dedicated box, so whatever crap it wants to pull in and spew all over the place is fine with me. When its time to upgrade, I'm yet to see if Docker can help me, I can't see how (at the very least, not much).

      So... what I'm saying is... I can see Docker making a lot of inroads in a lot of places, I'm just not sure its the special sauce for every situation, which is what the hype seems to suggest.

    20. Re: Summaries, how do they work? by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      If you're using something like CoreOS with systemd, you can spin up the database in a cluster of nodes, and something like fleetctl will spin up the database again on another node if you lose that node. If you write your database container correctly, then it will look for existing db containers in the node cluster and spin itself up as a secondary database, attaching to the primary and allowing you to spin up and down database capacity as needed, sort of your own ec2 system that can adjust itself based on load.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    21. Re:Summaries, how do they work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, and now I have an idea of what the hell a docker is. I was thinking "Isn't that a brand of pants or something?" This docker idea sounds like it might be useful. Is it new?

    22. Re:Summaries, how do they work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if your program require file access or utilize multiple threads.

    23. Re:Summaries, how do they work? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      So, WTF is docker?

      The same thing it was when we ran articles about it 3 days ago.

  8. Poettering supports women's rights. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Whined that there are too many white males in tech. Took the side of the sarah cunt. Does not believe that Hans Reiser did the correct thing and should be a free man.

    >In the United States, as late as the 1880s most States set the minimum age at 10-12, (in Delaware it was 7 in 1895).[8] Inspired by the "Maiden Tribute" female reformers in the US initiated their own campaign[9] which petitioned legislators to raise the legal minimum age to at least 16, with the ultimate goal to raise the age to 18. The campaign was successful, with almost all states raising the minimum age to 16-18 years by 1920.

    >Also: see: Deuteronomy chapter 22 verses 28-29, hebrew allows men to rape girl children and keep them: thus man + girl is obviously fine. Feminists are commanded to be killed as anyone enticing others to follow another ruler/judge/god is to be killed as-per Deuteronomy. It is wonderful when this happens from time to time: celebrate)

    1. Re:Poettering supports women's rights. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they dropped the rules about sodomy I might just be converted!

    2. Re:Poettering supports women's rights. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What rules about sodomy? There are none in the old testament.

      Do what you want with your girls and women.

  9. Docker Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Again, what the fuck is Docker?

  10. docker turds figure out sysadmin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Surprise! You still need to know how to be a sysadmin to reduce the size of an installed system. This is crap real sysadmins have been doing for decades, yet all of you devops turds are FINALLY catching on.

    Maybe if you guys listened to people who've done this shit before...

  11. FuC4! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    of HIV and other SLING Fyou can

  12. SYSTEMD IS THE BEST SYSTEM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WE WUZ KANGZ

  13. Well the race is still open by yacc143 · · Score: 1

    As long as one cannot print out the image as a QR code ;)

  14. Docker is Slower by wasteoid · · Score: 1

    Docker applications are slower than natively-running code.

    1. Re:Docker is Slower by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are completely out to lunch. A process running in container performs exactly the same as a process running on a bare-metal OS.

      It's not magic or anything, a process running in a container IS running on a bare-metal OS. Spend some time reading about chroots and you'll get the gist of it.

  15. Stop using docker by allo · · Score: 1

    To use the potential of docker, you need to use prebuild images, otherwise it doesn't speed anything up. Prebuild images are just like "okay, somebody uploaded something, i execute it and feed my important data to it". No need to say, it's a bad idea.
    What to use instead?
    Use plain LXC. LXC works great, you can easily generate a template with debootstrap (it brings a script, which does that) from official debian packages.
    Then use ansible to install your stuff. An ansible file just looks like a Dockerfile, only that it has a reasonable function list like "apt: name=apache2 state=installed", which does not rely on writing your own commands "apt-get install apache2", so you avoid many pitfalls (for example quoting stuff with spaces and so on) and it uses jinja2 for templates. Read the docs yourself, it's a great tool to build environments or manage existing ones.