
Docker is just static linking for millenials - DyslexicAtheist
https://twitter.com/tef_ebooks/status/1167158012580126721
======
westurner
No, LXC does quite a bit more than static linking. An inability to recognize
that likely has nothing to do with generation.

Can you launch a process in a chroot, with cgroups? Okay, now upgrade
everything it's linked with (without breaking the host/build system)

Configure a host-only network for a few processes – running in separate
cgroups – without DHCP.

Criticize Docker? Rootless builds and containers are essentially impossible.
Buildah and podman make rootless builds possible without a socket. Like
sysvinit, though, IDK how well centralized logging (and logshipping, and
logged crashes and restarts) works without that socket.

Given comments like this, it's likely that you've never built a chroot for a
different distro. Or launchd a process with cgroups.

------
im3w1l
The big difference between docker and static linking is that a docker
container can:

* "Link" against commandline utilities.

* "Link" against daemons.

* Contain state.

* Has (insecure) isolation.

------
erulabs
Like Kelsey Hightower said so we’ll at KubeCon this year: yes in 5 years
docker might be dead. In 5 years Kubernetes might be dead. But in 5 years, all
your code, tarballed it’s environment, packaged with the ports and commands to
make it work, absolutely will not.

Static linking is still absolutely an option in the land of containers - it’s
just called a shared base image instead of a shared linked library.

If you’d told me 10 years ago people would flip out when asked to document
their application artifacts, I would have probably laughed and agreed,
unfortunately :P

