←back to thread

398 points emersonrsantos | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
mschuster91 ◴[] No.42225102[source]
The fact how simple it is to re-implement a large part of Docker because all it fundamentally is a bit of glue code to the kernel is the biggest problem Docker-the-company faced and still faces.

Where Docker adds real value is not (just) Docker Hub but Docker for Windows and Mac. The integrations offer a vastly superior experience than messing around with VirtualBox and Vagrant by hand (been there, done that) to achieve running Docker on one's development machine.

replies(9): >>42225135 #>>42225179 #>>42225190 #>>42225192 #>>42225204 #>>42225325 #>>42225397 #>>42226422 #>>42227107 #
magic_hamster ◴[] No.42225190[source]
Docker Desktop on Mac is a handicapped, underprivileged mess. Docker cli for Mac with Colima is still underprivileged, but at least you can skip the bs license and Docker's gui. On Windows you can at least use Docker on WSL which works great. Why use Docker Desktop is beyond me.
replies(4): >>42225237 #>>42225771 #>>42226076 #>>42226157 #
skissane ◴[] No.42225237[source]
> Why use Docker Desktop is beyond me.

I lived through a failed attempt to migrate from Docker Desktop for Mac to an open source alternative (minikube+portainer, IIRC). A lot of test scripts developers relied on – to run parts of the integration test suite on their laptops for debugging – broke, because Docker Desktop for Mac went to a lot of effort to make macOS look like you were running Docker on Linux, whereas the open source replacement wasn't as seamless. Some of these test scripts contained Java code directly talking to the Docker daemon over its Unix domain socket, so need the same API implemented. Many other scripts made heavy use of the Docker CLI. After spending a lot of time on it, it was decided to just go back to Docker Desktop for Mac. The failed migration had resulted in highly paid engineers spending time pulling their hair out trying to get test scripts to work instead of actually fixing bugs and delivering new features.

Now, that was 2+ years ago now, and maybe the open source alternatives have caught up since, or maybe we picked the wrong one or made some other mistake. But I'm not rushing to try it again.

replies(7): >>42225279 #>>42225324 #>>42225466 #>>42225751 #>>42227532 #>>42228677 #>>42238771 #
jml78 ◴[] No.42225279{3}[source]
I would look at Orbstack. Yes it costs money but it is pretty great.

Your situation sounds very similar to the company I work for. Orbstack has been a drop in replacement except one issue. Any dev using IPv6 assignment on their home network has issues where pods try to hit external dns because it tries to use IPv6 and I don’t think the Orbstack k8s instance is dual stack.

There are hacks to get around it but if I could get Orbstack to address this issue, I couldn’t find one other issue.

Orbstack is crazy fast and way better than docker desktop overall

replies(2): >>42226117 #>>42249914 #
1. notnmeyer ◴[] No.42249914{4}[source]
i pay for orbstack. makes life better.