Yeah, I honestly just strongly dislike the whole Docker ethos. It was designed for one thing (deployment at scale), at which it excelled, and then everyone uses it for a different thing (reproducible one-off deployment), at which it is fine, basically, but just kind of the minimum set of capabilities to get the job done.
Nix can do what Docker does, in a much superior fashion (lower disk space, much better transparency, rollback ability, lack of towering chains of follow-on effects as you are talking about, and applications outside of mucking around with containerized images), but for some reason everyone uses Docker, and Nix is as far as I can tell unused outside of NixOS.
Whatever. When they make me king, it’ll be different, that’s all I can say.
theherk@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Nix and Docker / container runtimes are completely different animals. Each is good at what they do, but those are vastly different things, with some overlap. If you want to share a kernel but use fewer resources than a VM, containers can do that. If you want to go further and completely isolate, you can use microvm’s like firecracker.
I don’t follow what is wrong with that. Maybe you mean it’s use where people use it specifically as a package manager. I agree with that, but even then it has its handy place.
PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 4 days ago
Precisely. Containerization is great and Docker does it well. Sending someone a reproducible script that can set up your software package for them is great. Marrying the two concepts unnecessarily and using one specific tool which is designed primarily to do the first, to instead do the second, is the only real issue I’m taking with it.