I still think it's moronic, but at at least it saves time and is dumb enough that entrants can manage it
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
When did you start to accept it?
I still think it's moronic, but at at least it saves time and is dumb enough that entrants can manage it
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
> python venv gays furious.
We use both in my team.
It's genuinely great. Spinning up huge docker compose environments with a relatively small footprint and making them reproducible is piss easy.
>reproducible
It isn't reproducible.
Well then maybe you should learn how to write proper Docker configs because it runs on all my machines
>just add thousands of hacks to get it to to be reproducible
I'm sticking with Arion.
Kek, keep coping with your obscure loonix software in your mom's basement
>Source: trust me bro
Not reproducible until proven otherwise.
>It's not reproducible because I said so, bro
The burden of proof is on the claimant. You claimed Docker is reproducible. Now prove it.
Boettiger (2015), An introduction to Docker for reproducible research, with examples from the R environment, ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, Special Issue on Repeatability and Sharing of Experimental Artifacts. 49(1), 71-79, doi: 10.1145/2723872.2723882
Now shut the frick up you contrarian neet
This does not at all consider source reproducibility. You are essentially claiming that downloading a versioned file is reproducible. This tends to be true, but it's hardly a useful property. If you can reproduce a Docker container from source from the ground up, then you have achieved something useful. Until then, Docker brings nothing new to the table in terms of reproducibility.
>you would find out it's bloody good at exactly that.
It isn't. In fact, it's terrible at it. It provides no useful tools that would aid in reproducibility. Given a Dockerfile that contains RUN apt update && apt upgrade, reproduce the image that was built three months back. You can't, because Docker is not reproducible.
>Given a Dockerfile that contains RUN apt update && apt upgrade
>if you use Docker wrong, then it's not good
Your dockerfile should not contain this type of shit. It should use versioned images of the software it's meant to install.
People add apt update into their dockerfiles because they don't want to be blamed for unpatched images running on live servers. Because making new images and pushing them frequently is time consuming and burns disk space on your git repo.
The irony is that docker got popular for dealing with the bullshit code that couldn't survive an apt upgrade but standard practice involves forcing everything to run on an unknown system state because the alternative is 90s levels of exploitable servers.
>People add apt update into their dockerfiles because they don't want to be blamed for unpatched images running on live servers. Because making new images and pushing them frequently is time consuming and burns disk space on your git repo.
Wrong. You can literally automate the task of grabbing the latest release of a project from Github and generating a docker image from it. Then your Dockerfile just needs to pull <my_image>:latest. And if you ever have an issue with a new release, you just temporarily hardcode the version to the second-to-last until another release comes out that fixes the problem.
You just seem like you don't know how to use Docker.
>you just temporarily hardcode the version to the second-to-last until another release comes out that fixes the problem.
I can tell that you haven't done a lot of professional software development or systems administration if you think this is normal.
Black person, are you really pushing your raw images to git?
Are you really manually updating your images and validating them instead of writing automated tests?
>I'm ignorant, therefore I'm right
The whole point of docker is to make software reproducible regardless of the environment it's running in, and if you had actually used it, you would find out it's bloody good at exactly that.
You chose to write it in an irreproducible way. The fault is on you bro
You can create irreproducible things with any software that advertises reproducibility. The point is that the software should provide tooling to make creating reproducible things EASIER. Docker does nothing of the sort. It is exactly as useful for reproducibility as wget https://myrepo.com/mysoftware-1.3.5-amd64-bin, yet wget doesn't advertise reproducibility. If you want to be reproducible with Docker, you need to manually take the exact same measures to achieve reproducibility as you would without Docker. Docker provides NOTHING.
Try to run your reproducible script on baremetal development machine. Chances are you can't reproduce it because the state of your system has already changed. Docker on the other hand doesn't have this problem
No problem with the right tools.
True. Doesn't change the fact docker does provide something contrary to what you said
How do you know who said what when you aren't using nicknames. Anybody could've mentioned Nix.
>no argument
Doesn't matter. All I know is you get btfo'd and docker wins again
>>no argument
I'm not looking to provide an argument?..
>jump in a fight and say i'm innocent when losing
How convenient
This. Read the average DockerFile:
>FROM: Ubuntu
>RUN apt update && apt upgrade -y
Docker can manage images, not software. You're just running a shitload of apt/apk instances. Also have fun doing updates, which is also not handled by Docker. Docker only really works if you manage your own images.
Portainer is a thing.
YWNBAW
You will never reproduce, troony.
I'm seeing this sentiment to "just" accept it and quite often lately, but honestly how do you even backup and restore these things if something like mysql is involved?
docker isn't a substitute for proper system administration nor a magic bullet. yes /var/lib/mysql must reside in a separate volume for persistence, but then again, backing up a mysql database under docker isn't any different than backing up a normal mysql system:
docker exec my-mysql mysqldump -uroot -pwh4t3v3r --all-databases > backup.sql
(bonus points for using env variables for the password)
same as above, docker images aren't different than, in that case, regular packages. anything that
- is published by docker hub themselves, or
- is published by the software developer, or
- has public, auditable dockerfile and sources
will be fine. just don't install random images in the same way you won't install random .debs published by god knows who.
>exec
Wait, i can just administer it like an lxc container? I thought the whole point between them was docker being more tied up. Does the same apply to podman?
you certainly can manage docker containers as if they where lxc containers, but it's not ideal.
the main difference for that case being, if there's an update to mysql, in docker you'll destroy the whole image and apply the new while keeping whatever needs to be persistent in volumes (/var/lib/mysql and whatever changes have you done to /etc/my.cnf.d) instead of applying updates with the package manager.
for the rest of it, just read the manpages to docker-run and docker-exec. and yes these will apply to podman where the cli is almost 1:1 compatible.
Not gonna lie, that just solved a greater confusion in my head than I'm willing to admit. It always disturbed me why people are using it outside development beds and some specialized cloud stuff, but if internal commands are actually available, or rather I don't need sqlite to get sane backups, I might look into it again some time. Thanks anon!
you will never reproduce
you moron
>reproducible
as long as you have no kernel regressions I guess
When I had to setup postgres with pgamin
With this it's just one compose file, and it always works
Can you do something like docker run image args, or i need to build an image with the right env variables?
You can pass in args when you build an image, I believe you can only pass in environment variables when you run the image.
>It isn't. In fact, it's terrible at it. It provides no useful tools that would aid in reproducibility. Given a Dockerfile that contains RUN apt update && apt upgrade, reproduce the image that was built three months back. You can't, because Docker is not reproducible.
This is why you package pin when writing production ready Dockerfiles NEET
I like it, filters the boomer devs that air obsessed with their unmaintainable, unscalable legacy monolith code
Instead you get webdevs that are obsessed with their unmaintainable, hyperscalable-for-no-reason, cloud-native images.
But go ahead, do pay the cloud vendors by the hour for something that can easily run on a classic server in a colo. Ever wondered who is pushing those kinds of technologies?
This. Docker is a great way to take a server that can serve thousands of requests per second and drop that to a few hundred. And all because you can't trust your webdevs to maintain their python scripts. You can take that scalable code and run it on bare metal or VMs. You don't need to build a clusterfrick of docker files that pull from various repos and try to patch themselves into some semblance of up-to-date security to get scalability. The scalability came from writing code that doesn't rely on a centrally locked singular database, docker had nothing to do with it.
@Black person
have sex incel
>App store from Linux in a closed source environment.
Heh, poopwer of FOSS
><When did you start to accept it?
Yesterday when I set it up on my VPS. 3 containers so far:
>nginx as my reverse proxy / load balancer
>nginx as my static site server
>gitlab with my shit code
>>I still think it's moronic
It fricking is
>>but at at least it saves time and is dumb enough that entrants can manage it
You have to set it up first though.
are docker images foss? how do you know they don't have malware?
Yes, but they can be difficult to audit because it's layer over layer over layer. We regularly use the Docker scan plugin to scan them for known vulns. Our pipeline also uses a couple of tools to scan Docker images and uses Falco for runtime security monitoring
>need to run some convoluted linux tool which needs lots of disk space
>no spare suitable linux hardware about
>remember my NAS has docker bundled in
>telnet in, docker run <bloat>,
>hey presto, it just works!
ok so im pretty new to this and know nothing but the basic with docker container, why is this moronic?
Rather than craft competent software, just throw another stop gap on the pile!
>Rather than craft competent software
If you haven't noticed yet, none of the people who use it are developing any software
It has some quirks and drawbacks, but I wouldn't go back to a pre-container world.
So what I'm seeing is the Docker is just a way to cut the bloat from VMs. This allows people to run software on remote systems in a shared environment to reduce hardware costs.
It s fricking dogshit
>want to install AWX
>have to install python and libraries, and ansible on host computer
>have to intsall docker
>install it
>FRICKING requires root privileges to run
>give them
>needs to run like other 4 containers to function properly
>uninstall everything
>python was a gnome dependency so it also fricked up my desktop
I smell bait, but else you done goofed. The official AWX image handles all python packages for you. Outside of it you shouldn't install anything.
t. running awx in docker
As I understand chroot does exactly the same thing as a docker container.
Theres BSD jails, guix/nix environments, VMs, even plan9 userspaces... all these things that people here claim do similar shit. Just choose a tool and run with it if they truly solve the same issue
I don't have a reason to use docker. Like my pi4 I don't know what to do with it. I keep searching the docker hub for something interesting.
when I got a real job and seeing all this shit thrown into artifactory.