• nous@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    Um no. Containers are not just chroot. Chroot is a way to isolate or namespace the filesystem giving the process run inside access only to those files. Containers do this. But they also isolate the process id, network, and various other system resources.

    Additionally with runtimes like docker they bring in vastly better tooling around this. Making them much easier to work with. They are like chroot on steroids, not simply marketing fluff.

    • monk@lemmy.unboiled.info
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Yeah, and this brings no tangible UX or security benefits and is only ever used because last-century package managers can’t manage packages, containers are glorified chroots.

  • Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    First of all: no, and repeating this nonsense over and over doesn’t make it any more true.

    Second of all: I truly will never understand the hatred some people have for docker. If you prefer all bare metal install, then fine. But constantly shouting from the rooftops how useless and bad docker is seems a little silly.

    • Solumbran@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      Containers are fine but docker is a pain in the ass that lazy people use when they don’t want to provide clean installation/packaging.

      How many times have I seen an equivalent of “we use a custom fork of an obsolete version of an unmaintained package, so if you want to compile it yourself good luck because we forgot how we even did it. Alternatively, you can install the docker version”…