> Docker makes it easy to provide multiple containerised copies of an identical environment.
Correct. The Linux architecture around a global of dependencies is, imho, bad and wrong. The thesis is it's good because you can deploy a security fix to libfoo.so just once for the whole system. However we now live in a world where you actually need to deploy the updated libfoo.so to all your various hierarchical Docker images. sad trombone
> Containers are a light alternative to VM images.
A light alternative to Docker is simply deploy your dependencies and not rely on a fragile, complicated global environment.
> I assume you find the existence of Windows containers just as embarrassing?
Yes.
I know my opinion is deeply unpopular. But I stand by it! Running a program should be as simple as downloading a zip, extracting, and running the executable. It's not hard!
I wish you all had experienced the golden age when running a program was as simple as apt-get install program and run it.
I find it hard to discuss the merits of Linux va windows with regard to deploying software without addressing the elephant in the room which is the replacement of a collectively maintained system that ensure software cohabitation by the modern compartmentalised collection of independent programs.
> Correct. The Linux architecture around a global of dependencies is, imho, bad and wrong. The thesis is it's good because you can deploy a security fix to libfoo.so just once for the whole system. However we now live in a world where you actually need to deploy the updated libfoo.so to all your various hierarchical Docker images. sad trombone
Only if you choose to use docker. As other people have pointed out most things on Linux can be deployed using a package manager.
> A light alternative to Docker is simply deploy your dependencies and not rely on a fragile, complicated global environment.
So like flatpak?
> I know my opinion is deeply unpopular. But I stand by it! Running a program should be as simple as downloading a zip, extracting, and running the executable. It's not hard!
How is that better than apt install? That (or equivalent on other distros) is how I install everything other than custom code on servers (that I git pull or similar).
Correct. The Linux architecture around a global of dependencies is, imho, bad and wrong. The thesis is it's good because you can deploy a security fix to libfoo.so just once for the whole system. However we now live in a world where you actually need to deploy the updated libfoo.so to all your various hierarchical Docker images. sad trombone
> Containers are a light alternative to VM images.
A light alternative to Docker is simply deploy your dependencies and not rely on a fragile, complicated global environment.
> I assume you find the existence of Windows containers just as embarrassing?
Yes.
I know my opinion is deeply unpopular. But I stand by it! Running a program should be as simple as downloading a zip, extracting, and running the executable. It's not hard!