6 ms·

> Don't know if it can be used as a proper Docker replacement The readme says "I can make no guarantees that it won't trash your system", so yeah clearly not i

by rtlfe 4y ago

> Don't know if it can be used as a proper Docker replacement The readme says "I can make no guarantees that it won't trash your system", so yeah clearly not intended for real use.

jen20 4y ago
Most software says that in the license too (even commercial software!) so it’s nice to see it front and center for once.
stjohnswarts 4y ago
that's why smart people always check this stuff out on spare machines and VMs. Right? ... right?
- counttheforks 4y ago
  I typically run stuff inside of docker
  - yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
    And now I'm curious whether this would work inside a container or not. I know dind is a thing, but I don't recall whether it needs special hacks that bocker lacks.
    - chupasaurus 4y ago
      It requires nearly full root access for the inner container runtime, thus it can trash your system.
kazinator 4y ago
Where does Docker guarantee that it won't trash your system? See here: https://www.docker.com/legal/docker-terms-service/ https://www.docker.com/legal/docker-terms-service/ Under EXCLUSION OF WARRANTIES and LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. Here, Bocker is also a replacement for Docker in exactly the same sense: Bocker's simple statement "I can't guarantee it won't trash your system" is a concise alterantive to a wall of legalese.
- kristopolous 4y ago
  To be fair one is for demonstration purposes and the other is intended to be used. They seek the same protections regardless. It's kind of like how a $1,000 water filtration system wants the same legal protection that a $15 Brita does or heck, I'd assume if you got scammed with a fraudulent water filter that used orgone energy and crystals, it too would also want those legal protections. You'd probably want to tread cautiously if someone doesn't use disclaimers - that's probably a more dangerous product.
  - kazinator 4y ago
    Sure, but in this case both Bocker and Docker just orchestrate features of Linux, which is where all the risks and complexity lies. To verify that Bocker adds no additional issues is a smaller job than verifying Docker in the same way. If there is some problem in the actual containerization, Bocker and Docker will be equally affected.
    - okamiueru 4y ago
      Isn't the argument presented here that just because two things have the same "no responsibility in event of failure"-clause does not mean likelihood of failure, robustness, battletesting, etc, are comparable? Or am I missing something
- bottled_poe 4y ago
  But.. it’s not a good alternative. This description is not as precise or as bounded as the “legalese” wording.
  - makapuf 4y ago
    Well, I didn't read the legalese but read this short sentence. That makes it 1000% better for me right now, you can't abstract away the message channel. Maybe the best would be to have a short 10-line summary then the legally bounding legalese. (Edit: nonsense spelling error)
anderspitman 4y ago
Should probably run it in a VM just to be safe

by rtlfe 4y ago

> Don't know if it can be used as a proper Docker replacement The readme says "I can make no guarantees that it won't trash your system", so yeah clearly not intended for real use.

jen20 4y ago

Most software says that in the license too (even commercial software!) so it’s nice to see it front and center for once.

stjohnswarts 4y ago

that's why smart people always check this stuff out on spare machines and VMs. Right? ... right?

counttheforks 4y ago
I typically run stuff inside of docker
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
  And now I'm curious whether this would work inside a container or not. I know dind is a thing, but I don't recall whether it needs special hacks that bocker lacks.
  - chupasaurus 4y ago
    It requires nearly full root access for the inner container runtime, thus it can trash your system.

kazinator 4y ago

Where does Docker guarantee that it won't trash your system? See here: https://www.docker.com/legal/docker-terms-service/ https://www.docker.com/legal/docker-terms-service/ Under EXCLUSION OF WARRANTIES and LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. Here, Bocker is also a replacement for Docker in exactly the same sense: Bocker's simple statement "I can't guarantee it won't trash your system" is a concise alterantive to a wall of legalese.

kristopolous 4y ago
To be fair one is for demonstration purposes and the other is intended to be used. They seek the same protections regardless. It's kind of like how a $1,000 water filtration system wants the same legal protection that a $15 Brita does or heck, I'd assume if you got scammed with a fraudulent water filter that used orgone energy and crystals, it too would also want those legal protections. You'd probably want to tread cautiously if someone doesn't use disclaimers - that's probably a more dangerous product.
- kazinator 4y ago
  Sure, but in this case both Bocker and Docker just orchestrate features of Linux, which is where all the risks and complexity lies. To verify that Bocker adds no additional issues is a smaller job than verifying Docker in the same way. If there is some problem in the actual containerization, Bocker and Docker will be equally affected.
  - okamiueru 4y ago
    Isn't the argument presented here that just because two things have the same "no responsibility in event of failure"-clause does not mean likelihood of failure, robustness, battletesting, etc, are comparable? Or am I missing something
bottled_poe 4y ago
But.. it’s not a good alternative. This description is not as precise or as bounded as the “legalese” wording.
- makapuf 4y ago
  Well, I didn't read the legalese but read this short sentence. That makes it 1000% better for me right now, you can't abstract away the message channel. Maybe the best would be to have a short 10-line summary then the legally bounding legalese. (Edit: nonsense spelling error)

anderspitman 4y ago

Should probably run it in a VM just to be safe