6 ms·
If everything is a container, does that mean processes have failed?
by andridk 7y ago
If everything is a container, does that mean processes have failed?
- jjtheblunt 7y agoContainers run processes, in a context where those within a container only see those within the same container, by underlying OS accounting generalization.
- pests 7y agoContainers aren't even a thing like that though. They don't run anything per se. Implementations vary but it can be as simple as an extra struct field in the process list.
- jjtheblunt 7y agoagreed that my language was sloppy. genuine thanks.
- seabrookmx 7y agoA container _is_ a process, just with cgroups associated to it on startup so it has no visibility of other processes in the system (aka. is sandboxed). So no.. processes haven't failed. Anything that runs on your system is or is part of a process.
- tuyiown 7y agoNot really, for shared ressources, it was not that long before realizing that isolation was necessary for memory, storage has been has been managed via fs with rights since sharing files between processes is handy, shared networking as been a problem from day 1 (port numbers assignation). Container just homogenise the paradygm for all resources: strict isolation by default, else explicit sharing.
- jacobush 7y agoFeels even more OS360/IBM :)
- als0 7y agoI’d personally say that the concept of users and user groups have failed, at least on systems that have only one user.
- OJFord 7y agoOr are at least misnamed. (Not that I have a better suggestion!)
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y agoThis is what I'd agree with. The concept of user and group are hand-me-downs from systems built for sharing networked resources and pretty much requires some kind of centralized AAA to make any sense. They're a model designed for protecting the system from users and users from eachother, but that doesn't make any sense on a personal computer where the more pressing need is to protect the user from malicious applications.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y agoI like being protected from writing to /dev/sda by mistake. If an OS is going to expose its guts to the world it makes sense to have permission controls on the vulnerable parts.
- msla 7y ago> that doesn't make any sense on a personal computer where the more pressing need is to protect the user from malicious applications. Of course it makes sense. Running applications as restricted users has been standard practice for decades, precisely because it makes sense.
- goto_self 7y agoAnd the advent of containerization is becoming standard practice now, precisely because it makes more sense for certain situations, where the user abstraction has proven less useful and more cumbersome. That was the point of this subthread.
- 7y ago
- pjmlp 7y agoNah, Linux catching up to HP-UX vaults, Tru64 execution enviroments, Solaris Zones.
- eeZah7Ux 7y agoOnly in the HN bubble.
- jayd16 7y agoProcesses never promised to solve things like file system isolation or wrapping environment dependencies in a single distributable.