Comment by graemep
4 months ago
I would say those are good point, not impractical ideas.
You make software harder to distribute (so inconvenient for developers and distributors) but gain better security updates and lower resource usage.
4 months ago
I would say those are good point, not impractical ideas.
You make software harder to distribute (so inconvenient for developers and distributors) but gain better security updates and lower resource usage.
The success of Docker shows that this is a minority view.
I was replying to a comment comparing the distribution of self-contained binaries to Linux package management. This is a much more straightforward question
Containers are a related (as the GP comment says) thing, but offer a different and varied set of tradeoffs.
Those tradeoffs also depend on what you are using containers for. Scaling by deploying large numbers of containers on a cloud providers? Applications with bundled dependencies on the same physical server? As a way of providing a uniform development environment?
> Those tradeoffs also depend on what you are using containers for. Scaling by deploying large numbers of containers on a cloud providers? Applications with bundled dependencies on the same physical server? As a way of providing a uniform development environment?
Those are all pretty much the same thing. I want to distribute programs and have them work reliably. Think about how they would work if Linux apps were portable as standard:
> Scaling by deploying large numbers of containers on a cloud providers?
You would just rsync your deployment and run it.
> Applications with bundled dependencies on the same physical server?
Just unzip each app in its own folder.
> As a way of providing a uniform development environment?
Just provide a zip with all the required development tools.
3 replies →