5 ms·

Any update on when the OS X version will be available? I'm only seeing version 1.1.2 here: https://github.com/boot2docker/osx-installer/releases https://github

Any update on when the OS X version will be available? I'm only seeing version 1.1.2 here: https://github.com/boot2docker/osx-installer/releases https://github.com/boot2docker/osx-installer/releases

tachion 12y ago
And anything related to FreeBSD Jail support? :)
- Alupis 12y ago
  Docker != Jails (not in any way, shape, nor form). Please stop trying to make Docker into everything it's not.
  - scott_karana 12y ago
    Docker currently uses LXC. Isn't it reasonable to suggest porting it to other jail-solutions?
    - Alupis 12y ago
      Well, simplifying here, but Docker is more-or-less a fancy wrapper for LXC. FreeBSD Jails do a lot more than just make applications portable -- they provide security and isolation between applications (like a super chroot). Jails can be used to safely provide application hosting for various clients while Docker should only be used for your applications (jails prevent clients from messing with the host system nor each other, while Docker applications can, making it not secure for a multiple-client hosted system -- but then again, it was not designed to do that). So, no, it's not reasonable to want to "port" Docker to anything since Docker is it's own thing. It would be more reasonable to port docker to FreeBSD (it it weren't already) than to say to "port" it to a Jail, or request it operate like a Jail (unless you got those features into LXC first, which LXC isn't, and therefore it wont). ~ A better (but admittedly over-simplified) comparison would be Jails are closer to application virtualization and Docker is closer to application portability. Very different problems they are solving.
      - cpuguy83 12y ago
        I don't think you are understanding what docker is doing. Docker interfaces with the kernel to provide security and isolation via cgroups and namespaces. This is exactly what jails does, and is indeed on the list of things to be added. It's really a matter of someone taking the time to write the driver for it. Docker also provides an image format and infrastructure for helping to make applications portable.
        Alupis 12y ago
        > I don't think you are understanding what docker is doing. Seems like you actually are not understanding what docker is doing. Docker (and LXC for the matter) aren't about security -- they are about portability of the application and environment. Everything else is tertiary. > It's really a matter of someone taking the time to write the driver for it. It's a bit more complicated than that -- the two are different beasts with different goals. > Docker also provides an image format and infrastructure for helping to make applications portable. This is the main goal of Docker -- making applications and their environment portable. > Docker interfaces with the kernel to provide security and isolation via cgroups and namespaces Neither Cgroups nor Namspaces provide security in the same sense as a virtual machine or virtualized app (jails). Cgroups are about resources allocated from the host, and namespaces are about process isolation... but neither prevent different containers from interacting with each other nor the host. This is the security aspect - which Docker (and LXC) were not designed to provide. The problem they solve does not require it. Use the right tool for the right job. If you are going to host a bunch of applications for different people -- go with virtualization, either via a hypervisor or jail. If you are going to deploy applications in an enterprise environment and need it to be consistent always, across all distros and version -- go with LXC/docker.
        waffle_ss 12y ago
        > Seems like you actually are not understanding what docker is doing cpuguy83 is a Docker core maintainer: https://github.com/cpuguy83 https://github.com/cpuguy83 He's answered plenty of my questions in #docker IRC.
    - michaelneale 12y ago
      It doesn't use Lxc (and hasn't for a while) but uses Cgroups and namespaces in a similar way to what Lxc does. This is even exposed as a library they call libcontainer.
justizin 12y ago
Use the Vagrant env, boot2docker is a mess IMO.
- namin 12y ago
  I liked the Vagrant env but I don't see it mentioned as an option here: https://docs.docker.com/installation/#installation https://docs.docker.com/installation/#installation Are there any up-to-date installation instructions for the Vagrant env?
  - shykes 12y ago
    It's no longer supported. I use the standard Mac setup (boot2docker + Virtualbox) and it works quite well for me. It's my primary environment for developing Docker :)
- knite 12y ago
  Why is boot2docker a mess? I find it unusable due to lack of file sharing from the host through to a container. Are there any other showstoppers?
shykes 12y ago
The boot2docker devs are running their build right now. The QA for that part is harder to automate (mac, windows, virtualbox etc). I think starting with the next release we'll need to pull in b2d builds as a gateway to the main release process to avoid this problem.

Any update on when the OS X version will be available? I'm only seeing version 1.1.2 here: https://github.com/boot2docker/osx-installer/releases https://github.com/boot2docker/osx-installer/releases

tachion 12y ago

And anything related to FreeBSD Jail support? :)

Alupis 12y ago
Docker != Jails (not in any way, shape, nor form). Please stop trying to make Docker into everything it's not.
- scott_karana 12y ago
  Docker currently uses LXC. Isn't it reasonable to suggest porting it to other jail-solutions?
  - Alupis 12y ago
    Well, simplifying here, but Docker is more-or-less a fancy wrapper for LXC. FreeBSD Jails do a lot more than just make applications portable -- they provide security and isolation between applications (like a super chroot). Jails can be used to safely provide application hosting for various clients while Docker should only be used for your applications (jails prevent clients from messing with the host system nor each other, while Docker applications can, making it not secure for a multiple-client hosted system -- but then again, it was not designed to do that). So, no, it's not reasonable to want to "port" Docker to anything since Docker is it's own thing. It would be more reasonable to port docker to FreeBSD (it it weren't already) than to say to "port" it to a Jail, or request it operate like a Jail (unless you got those features into LXC first, which LXC isn't, and therefore it wont). ~ A better (but admittedly over-simplified) comparison would be Jails are closer to application virtualization and Docker is closer to application portability. Very different problems they are solving.
    - cpuguy83 12y ago
      I don't think you are understanding what docker is doing. Docker interfaces with the kernel to provide security and isolation via cgroups and namespaces. This is exactly what jails does, and is indeed on the list of things to be added. It's really a matter of someone taking the time to write the driver for it. Docker also provides an image format and infrastructure for helping to make applications portable.
      - Alupis 12y ago
        > I don't think you are understanding what docker is doing. Seems like you actually are not understanding what docker is doing. Docker (and LXC for the matter) aren't about security -- they are about portability of the application and environment. Everything else is tertiary. > It's really a matter of someone taking the time to write the driver for it. It's a bit more complicated than that -- the two are different beasts with different goals. > Docker also provides an image format and infrastructure for helping to make applications portable. This is the main goal of Docker -- making applications and their environment portable. > Docker interfaces with the kernel to provide security and isolation via cgroups and namespaces Neither Cgroups nor Namspaces provide security in the same sense as a virtual machine or virtualized app (jails). Cgroups are about resources allocated from the host, and namespaces are about process isolation... but neither prevent different containers from interacting with each other nor the host. This is the security aspect - which Docker (and LXC) were not designed to provide. The problem they solve does not require it. Use the right tool for the right job. If you are going to host a bunch of applications for different people -- go with virtualization, either via a hypervisor or jail. If you are going to deploy applications in an enterprise environment and need it to be consistent always, across all distros and version -- go with LXC/docker.
        waffle_ss 12y ago
        > Seems like you actually are not understanding what docker is doing cpuguy83 is a Docker core maintainer: https://github.com/cpuguy83 https://github.com/cpuguy83 He's answered plenty of my questions in #docker IRC.
  - michaelneale 12y ago
    It doesn't use Lxc (and hasn't for a while) but uses Cgroups and namespaces in a similar way to what Lxc does. This is even exposed as a library they call libcontainer.

justizin 12y ago

Use the Vagrant env, boot2docker is a mess IMO.

namin 12y ago
I liked the Vagrant env but I don't see it mentioned as an option here: https://docs.docker.com/installation/#installation https://docs.docker.com/installation/#installation Are there any up-to-date installation instructions for the Vagrant env?
- shykes 12y ago
  It's no longer supported. I use the standard Mac setup (boot2docker + Virtualbox) and it works quite well for me. It's my primary environment for developing Docker :)
knite 12y ago
Why is boot2docker a mess? I find it unusable due to lack of file sharing from the host through to a container. Are there any other showstoppers?

shykes 12y ago

The boot2docker devs are running their build right now. The QA for that part is harder to automate (mac, windows, virtualbox etc). I think starting with the next release we'll need to pull in b2d builds as a gateway to the main release process to avoid this problem.