hckrnws
I've seen countless attempts to replace "docker build" and Dockerfile. They often want to give tighter control to the build, sometimes tightly binding to a package manager. But the Dockerfile has continued because of its flexibility. Starting from a known filesystem/distribution, copying some files in, and then running arbitrary commands within that filesystem mirrored so nicely what operations has been doing for a long time. And as ugly as that flexibility is, I think it will remain the dominant solution for quite a while longer.
> But the Dockerfile has continued because of its flexibility.
The flip side is that the world still hasn’t settle on a language-neutral build tool that works for all languages. Therefore we resort to running arbitrary commands to invoke language-specific package managers. In an alternate timeline where everyone uses Nix or Bazel or some such, docker build would be laughed out of the window.
There are some hurdles preventing that flow from achieving reproducible builds. As the bad guys get more sophisticated, it's going to become more and more important that one party can say "we trust this build hash" and a separate party to say "us too".
That's not going to work if both parties get different hashes when they build the image, which won't happen as long as file modification timestamps (and other such hazards) are part of what gets hashed.
Nix is exceptionally good at making docker containers.
Does Nix do one layer per dependency? Does it run into >=128 layers issues?
In Spack [1] we do one layer per package; it's appealing, but I never checked if besides the layer limit it's actually bad for performance when doing filesystem operations.
Yes but then you're committed to using Nix which doesn't work so well the moment you need some software not packaged by Nix.
Want to throw a requirements.txt in there? No no, why would you even ask that? Meanwhile docker says yeah sure just run pip install, why should I care?
Nix doesn't make sense if all you're going to use it for is building Docker images. It only makes sense if you're all in in the first place. Then Docker images are free.
LLMs are getting very good at packaging software using Nix.
Then you're committing to maintaining a package for that software.
Like all LLM boosters, you've ignored the fact that the largest time sink in many kinds of software is not initial development, but perpetual maintenance.
This. I wouldn't have touched Nix when you needed someone who was really good at Nix to keep it working, but agents make it viable to use in a number of place.
I use software from pretty much every language with Nix. And I package it myself too when needed. Including Python often :)
Especially if you use nix2container to take control over the layer construction and caching.
The lack of docker registry-like solutions really does seem to be the chokepoint for many alternatives.
Personally I love using mkosi and while it has all the composability and deployment options I'd care for, its clear not everyone wants to build starting only with a blank set of OS templates.
> the Dockerfile has continued because of its flexibility
I wish we had standardized on something other than shell commands, though. Puppet or terraform or something more declarative would have been such a better alternative to “everyone cargo cults ‘RUN apt-get upgrade’ onto the top of their dockerfiles”.
Like, the layer/stage/caching behavior is fine. I just wish the actual execution parts had been standardized using something at a higher level of abstraction than shell.
> Puppet or terraform or something more declarative would have been such a better alternative
Until you need to do something that isn't covered with its DSL, and you extend it with an external command execution declaration... At which point people will just write bash scripts anyway and use your declarative language as a glorified exec.
If you have 90-95% of everyone's needs (installing packages, compiling, putting files) covered in your DSL, and it has strong consistency and declarativeness, it's not that big of a problem if you need an escape hatch from time to time. Terraform, Puppet, Ansible, SaltStack show this pretty well, and the vast majority of them that isn't bash scripts is better and more maintainable than their equivalents in pure bash would be.
Docker broke out the build layer into a separate component called BuildKit (see HN discussion recently https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47166264).
However, Dockerfiles are so popular because they run shell commands and permit 'socially' extending someone else shell commands; tacking commands onto the end of someone else's shell script is a natural process. /bin/sh is unreasonably effective at doing anything you need to a filesystem, and if the shell exposes a feature, it has probably been used in a Dockerfile somewhere.
Every other solution, especially declarative ones, tend to come up short when _layering_ images quickly and easily. However, I agree they're good if you control the entire declarative spec.
Dockerfile has the flexibility to do what you want though, no? Use a base image with terraform or puppet or opentofu or whatever pre-installed, then your Dockerfile can just be the right command to apply some declarative file from the build context.
And if you want something weird that's not supported by your particular tool of choice, you have the escape hatch of running arbitrary commands in the Dockerfile.
What more do you want?
I'd say LLB is the "standard", Dockerfile is just one of human-friendly frontends, but you can always make one yourself or use an alternative. For example, Dagger uses BuildKit directly for building its containers instead of going through a Dockerfile.
Declarative methods existed before Docker for years and they never caught on.
They sounded nice on paper but the work they replaced was somehow more annoying.
I moved over to Docker when it came out because it used shell.
Oof, not terraform please. If you use foreach and friends, dependency calculations are broken, because dependency happens before dynamic rules are processed.
I'd get much better results it I used something else to do the foreach and gave terraform only static rules.
The more you try and abstract from the OS, the more problems you're going to run into.
Bash is pretty darn abstracted from the OS, though. Puppet vs Bash is more about abstraction relative to the goal.
If your dockerfile says “ensure package X is installed at version Y” that’s a lot clearer (and also more easy to make performant/cached and deterministic) than “apt-get update; apt-get install $transitive-at-specific-version; apt-get install $the-thing-you-need-atspecific-version”. I’m not thrilled at how distro-locked the shell version makes you, and how easy it is for accidental transitive changes to occur too.
But neither of those approaches is at a particularly low abstraction level relative to the OS itself; files and system calls are more or less hidden away in both package-manager-via-bash and puppet/terraform/whatever.
You can pretty much replace "docker build" with "go build".
But as long as people want to use scripting languages (like php, python etc) i guess docker is the neccessary evil.
Go is just one language, while Dockerfile gives you access to the whole universe with myriads of tools and options from early 1970s and up to the future. I don't know how you can compare or even "replace" Docker with Go; they belong to different categories.
>You can pretty much replace "docker build" with "go build".
I'll tell that to my CI runner, how easy is it for Go to download the Android SDK and to run Gradle? Can I also `go sonarqube` and `go run-my-pullrequest-verifications` ? Or are you also going to tell me that I can replace that with a shitty set of github actions ?
I'll also tell Microsoft they should update the C# definition to mark it down as a scripting language. And to actually give up on the whole language, why would they do anything when they could tell every developer to write if err != nil instead
Just because you have an extremely narrow view of the field doesn't mean it's the only thing that matters.
> You can pretty much replace "docker build" with "go build".
Interesting. How does go build my python app?
In some situations, yes, others no. For instance if you want to control memory or cpu using a container makes sense (unless you want to use cgroups directly). Also if running Kubernetes a container is needed.
You have to differentiate container images, and "runtime" containers. You can have the former without the latter, and vice versa. They are entirely orthogonal things.
E.g. systemd exposes a lot of resource control as well as sandboxing options, to the point that I would argue that systemd services can be very similar to "traditional" runtime containers, without any image involved.
Wasn’t this the same argument for .jar files?
It doesn't sound like Golang is going to dominate and replace everything else, so Docker is there to stay.
The math of “a decade” seemed wrong to me, since I remembered Docker debuting in 2013 at PyCon US Santa Clara.
Then I found an HN comment I wrote a few years ago that confirmed this:
“[...] I remember that day pretty clearly because in the same lightning talk session, Solomon Hykes introduced the Python community to docker, while still working on dotCloud. This is what I think might have been the earliest public and recorded tech talk on the subject:”
YouTube link: https://youtu.be/1vui-LupKJI?t=1579
Note: starts at t=1579, which is 26:19.
Just being pedantic though. That’s about 13 years ago. The lightning talk is fun as a bit of computing history.
(Edit: as I was digging through the paper, they do cite this YouTube presentation, or a copy of it anyway, in the footnotes. And they refer to a 2013 release. Perhaps there was a multi-year delay between the paper being submitted to ACM with this title and it being published. Again, just being pedantic!)
I've not done serious networking stuff for over two decades, and never in as complex an environment as that in the article, so the networking part of the article went pretty much over my head.
What I want to do when running a Docker container on Mac is to be able to have the container have an IP address separate from the Mac's IP address that applications on the Mac see. No port mapping: if the container has a web server on port 80 I want to access it at container_ip:80, not 127.0.0.1:2000 or something that gets mapped to container port 80.
On Linux I'd just used Docker bridged networking and I believe that would work, but on Mac that just bridges to the Linux VM running under the hypervisor rather than to the Mac.
Is there some officially recommended and supported way to do this?
For a while I did it by running WireGuard on the Linux VM to tunnel between that and the Mac, with forwarding enabled on the Linux VM [1]. That worked great for quite a while, but then stopped and I could not figure out why. Then it worked again. Then it stopped.
I then switched to this [2] which also uses WireGuard but in a much more automated fashion. It worked for quite a while, but also then had some problems with Docker updates sometimes breaking it.
It would be great if Docker on Mac came with something like this built in.
(co-author of the article and Docker engineer here) I think WireGuard is a good foundation to build this kind of feature. Perhaps try the Tailscale extension for Docker Desktop which should take care of all the setup for you, see https://hub.docker.com/extensions/tailscale/docker-extension
BTW are you trying to avoid port mapping because ports are dynamic and not known in advance? If so you could try running the container with --net=host and in Docker Desktop Settings navigate to Resources / Network and Enable Host Networking. This will automatically set up tunnels when applications listen on a port in the container.
Thanks for the links, I'll dig into those!
> Docker repurposed SLIRP, a 1990s dial-up tool originally for Palm Pilots, to avoid triggering corporate firewall restrictions by translating container network traffic through host system calls instead of network bridging.
Genuinely fascinating and clever solution!
Until recently, Podman used slirp4net[1] for its container networking. About two years ago, they switched over to Pasta[2][3] which works quite a bit differently.
[1] https://github.com/rootless-containers/slirp4netns
[2] https://blog.podman.io/2024/03/podman-5-0-breaking-changes-i...
[3] https://passt.top/passt/about/#pasta-pack-a-subtle-tap-abstr...
repurposing a Palm Pilot dial-up tool to sneak container traffic past enterprise firewalls is unhinged and yet it worked the best infrastructure hacks are never clever in the moment they are just desperate that the cleverness only shows up after someone else has to maintain it.
VPNKit (the SLIRP component) has been remarkably bug free over the years, and hasn't been much of a burden overall.
There was another component that we didn't have room to cover in the article that has been very stable (for filesystem sharing between the container and the host) that has been endlessly criticised for being slow, but has never corrupted anyone's data! It's interesting that many users preferred potential-dataloss-but-speed using asynchronous IO, but only on desktop environments. I think Docker did the right thing by erring on the side of safety by default.
Exactly. "so I hung the radiator out the window" vibes.
I am trying to decipher the meaning of your comment, to no avail.
So you’ve never improvised an air conditioning system from a spare bilge pump, a propane tank and a cast iron radiator?
Sir, this is a hacker news.
I don't think SLIRP was originally for palm pilots, given it was released two years before.
SLIRP was useful when you had a dial up shell, and they wouldn't give you slip or ppp; or it would cost extra. SLIRP is just a userspace program that uses the socket apis, so as long as you could run your own programs and make connections to arbitrary destinations, you could make a dial script to connect your computer up like you had a real ppp account. No incomming connections though (afaik), so you weren't really a peer on the internet, a foreshadowing of ubiquitous NAT/CGNAT perhaps.
> I don't think SLIRP was originally for palm pilots, given it was released two years before.
That's a mistake indeed; "popularised by" might have been better. Before my beloved Palmpilot arrived one Christmas, I was only using SLIRP to ninja in Netscape and MUD sessions onto a dialup connection which wasn't a very mainstream use.
A full decade since we took the 'it works on my machine' excuse and turned it into the industry standard architecture ('then we'll just ship your machine to production').
(coauthor of the article here)
Well, before Docker I used to work on Xen and that possible future of massive block devices assembled using Vagrant and Packer has thankfully been avoided...
One thing that's hard to capture in the article -- but that permeated the early Dockercons -- is the (positive) disruption Docker had in how IT shops were run. Before that going to production was a giant effort, and 'shipping your filesystem' quickly was such a change in how people approached their work. We had so many people come up to us grateful that they could suddenly build services more quickly and get them into the hands of users without having to seek permission slips signed in triplicate.
We're seeing the another seismic cultural shift now with coding agents, but I think Docker had a similar impact back then, and it was a really fun community spirit. Less so today with the giant hyperscalars all dominating, sadly, but I'll keep my fond memories :-)
>massive block devices assembled using Vagrant and Packer has thankfully been avoided...
Funny comment considering lightweight/micro-VMs built with tools like Packer are what some in the industry are moving towards.
And those lightweight VM base images are possible because Docker applied a downward pressure on OS base image sizes! Alpine Linux doesn't get enough credit for this; in addition to being a great base image, it was also the first distro to prioritise fast and small image creation (Gentoo and Arch were small, but not fast to create).
Maybe in that alternative future of massive block devices some downward pressure on image sizes would have been applied just the same.
It's not as easy; a block device has to be bootable and so usually bundles a kernel (large). And because the filesystem inside is opaque, you can't do layering like Docker does easily via overlayfs and friends. libguestfs does a heroic job of making VM images easier to manipulate from code, but it's an uphill battle...
Great point about coding agents! Back then, Docker gave us 'it works on my machine, let's ship the machine'. Now, AI agents are giving us 'I have no idea how this works, let's ship the prompt'. The early Docker community spirit really was legendary though—before every hyperscaler wrapped it in 7 layers of proprietary managed services. Thanks for the memories and the write-up!
Thanks for the kind words! I've been prodding @justincormack to resurrect the single most fun OS unconference I've ever attended -- New Directions in Operating Systems (last held back in 2014). https://operatingsystems.io
Some of those talks strangely make more sense today (e.g. Rump Kernels or unikernels + coding agents seems like a really good combination, as the agent could search all the way through the kernel layers as well).
I see this take a lot but I'd argue what Docker did was to entice everyone to capture their build into a repeatable process (via a Dockerfile).
"Ship your machine to production" isn't so bad when you have a ten-line script to recreate the machine at the push of a button.
Exactly my feeling. Docker is "works on this machine" with an executable recipe to build the machine and the application. Newer better solutions like OCI-compliant tools will gradually replace Docker, but the paradigm shift has provided a lot of lasting value.
It's the ultimate in static linking. Perhaps a question that should be asked is why that approach is so compelling?
I question that as well, it's also why Go is extremely popular. Could it just be a pendulum swing back towards static linking?
Wonder when some enterprising OSS dev will rebrand dynamic linking in the future...
CGO_ENABLED=0 is sigma tier.
I don't care about glibc or compatibility with /etc/nsswitch.conf.
look at the hack rust does because it uses libc:
> pub unsafe fn set_var<K: AsRef<OsStr>, V: AsRef<OsStr>>(key: K, value: V)
the real trick was making "ship your machine" sound like best practice and ten years later we r doing the same thing with ai "it works in my notebook" jst became "containerize the notebook and call it a pipeline" the abstraction always wins because fixing the actual problem is just too hard.
> fixing the actual problem is just too hard.
I think it’s laziness, not difficulty. That’s not meant to be snide or glib: I think gaining expertise in how to package and deploy non-containerized applications isn’t difficult or unattainable for most engineers; rather, it’s tedious and specialized work to gain that expertise, and Docker allowed much of the field to skip doing it.
That’s not good or bad per se, but I do think it’s different from “pre-container deployment was hard”. Pre-container deployment was neglected and not widely recognized as a specialty that needed to be cultivated, so most shops sucked at it. That’s not the same as “hard”.
It's not even laziness or expertise. A lot of people are against learning conventions. They want their way, meaning what works on their computer. That's why they like the current scope of package managers, docker, flatpack,... They can do what they want in the sandbox provided however nonsensical and then ship the whole thing. And it will break if you look at it the wrong way.
I mean, walking through a door is easier than tearing down a wall, walking through it, and rebuilding the wall. That doesn't mean the latter is a good idea.
...while completely forgetting about security
Oh, thank you... I'm not alone... I'm so tired of seeing crappy containers with pseudo service management handled by Dockerfiles, used instead of proper and serious packaging like that of many venerable Linux distributions.
>'then we'll just ship your machine production'
Minus the kernel of course. What is one to do for workloads requiring special kernel features or modules?
Those are global to the machine; generally not an issue and seccomp rules can filter out undesirable syscalls to other containers. But GPU kernel/userspace driver matching has been a huge headache; see https://cacm.acm.org/research/a-decade-of-docker-containers/... in the article for how the CDI is (sort of) helping standardise this.
Linux user space is an abject disaster of a design. So so so bad. Docker should not need to exist. Running computer programs need not be so difficult.
Who does it right?
Nix and Guix.
Good luck convincing people to switch!
But they’re roughly the same paradigm as docker, right? My understanding of the Nix approach is that it’s still reproducing most of a user land/filesystem in a captive/separate/sandbox environment. Like, docker is using namespaces for more stuff, Nix has a heavier emphasis on reproducibility/determinism, but … they’re both still throwing in the towel on deploying directly on the underlying OS’s userland (unless you go all the way to nixOS) and shipping what amounts to a filesystem in a box, no?
I daily drive NixOS. I don't have a global "userland". Packages are shipped from upstream and pull in the dependencies they need to function.
That means unlike Gentoo, I've never dealt with a "slot conflict" where two packages want conflicting dependencies. And unlike Ubuntu, I have new versions of everything.
Pick 2: share dependencies, be on the bleeding edge, or waste your time resolving conflicts.
Trying to convince people usually makes any resistance worse.
Using it, solving problems with it, and building a real community around it tend to make a much greater impact in the long run.
Yeah, but if the problem you are solving is rare for most practitioners, effectively theoretical until it actually happens, then people won't switch until they get bit by that particular problem.
Plan9 or Inferno.
Windows is an order of magnitude better in this regard.
It used to be, but only in cases where your distro doesn't just package whatever software you require. Nowadays I prefer Flatpak or AppImage over crappy custom Windows installers for those cases. They allow for sandboxing and reliable updating/deinstallation.
These days, I equate anything that ships via docker/flatpak first as built by someone that only care about their own computer, especially if the project is opensource. As soon as a library or a tool update, they usually rush to add a hard condition on it for no reason other than to be on the "bleeding edge".
And yet I'm constantly getting asked when we'll support Windows containers at my office.
We've given up on native Windows containers in OCaml after trying to use them for our CI builds for many years. See https://www.tunbury.org/2026/02/19/obuilder-hcs/ for our recent switch to HCS instead. Compared to Linux containers, they're very much a second-class citizen in the Microsoft worldview of Docker.
This is because your team doesn’t know how to ship software without using containers.
If you have adopted a bad tool then people are likely to want the bad tool in more places. This is the opposite of a virtuous cycle and is a horrible form of tech debt.
Windows.
Comment was deleted :(
An extremely random fact I noticed when writing the companion article [1] to this (an OCaml experience report):
"Docker, Guix and NixOS (stable) all had their first releases
during 2013, making that a bumper year for packaging aficionados."
TBH I feel as if only docker belongs in that list. Guix and nix have users, sure, but not remotely like docker.
Yeah they are way better than docker for packaging
The historic information in here was really interesting, and a great example of an article rapidly expanding in scope and detail. How they combatted corporate IT “security” software by pretending to be a VPN is quite unexpected.
I'm optimistic we will succeed in efforts to simplify linux application / dependency compatibility instead of relying on abstractions that which work around them.
Maybe if you only look at it through the lens of building an app/service, but containers offer so much more than that. By standardizing their delivery through registries and management through runtimes, a lot of operational headaches just go away when using a container orchestrator. Not to mention better utilization of hardware since containers are more lightweight than VMs.
> Not to mention better utilization of hardware
When compared to a VM, yes. But shipping a separate userspace for each small app is still bloat. You can reuse software packages and runtime environments across apps. From an I/O, storage, and memory utilization point of view, it feels baffling to me that containers are so popular.
> From an I/O, storage, and memory utilization point of view, it feels baffling to me that containers are so popular.
Why? It's not virtualization, it's containerization. It's using the host kennel.
Containers are fast.
I was referring to the userspace runtime stack, not the kernel. What I criticize is that multiple containers that share a single host usually overdo it with filesystem isolation. Hundreds of MBs of libraries and tools needlessly duplicated, even though they could just as well have used distro packages and deployed their apps as system-level packages and systemd unit files with `DynamicUser=`.
You can hardly call this efficient hardware utilization.
The duplication is a necessity to achieve the isolation. Having shared devels and hordes of unit files for a multi tenant system is hell - versioning issues can and will break this paradigm, no serious shop is doing this.
For running your own machine, sure. But this would become non maintainable for a sufficiently multi tenant system. Nix is the only thing that really can begin to solve this outside of container orchestration.
Hah indeed that's my perspective. I'm used to being able to compile program, distribute executable, "just works", across win, Linux, MacOs. (With appropriate compile targets set)
Agreed.
I've recently switched from docker compose to process compose and it's super nice not to have to map ports or mount volumes. What I actually needed from docker had to do less with containers and more with images, and nix solves that problem better without getting in the way at runtime.
Assuming I've found the right process-compose [1], it struck me as having much overlap with the features of systemd. Or at least, I would tend to reach for systemd if I wanted something to run arbitrary processes. Is there something additional/better that process-compose does for you?
That's the one, although I tend to reference it through https://github.com/juspay/services-flake because that way I end up using the community-maintained configs for whatever well-known services I've enabled (I'll use postgres as an example below, but there are many: https://community.flake.parts/services-flake/services)
What process-compose gives me is a single parent with all of that project's processes as children, and a nice TUI/CLI for scrolling through them to see who is happy/unhappy and interrogating their logs, and when I shut it down all of that project's dependencies shut down. Pretty much the same flow as docker-compose.
It's all self-contained so I can run it on MacOS and it'll behave just the same as on Linux (I don't think systemd does this, could be wrong), and without requiring me to solve the docker/podman/rancher/orbstack problem (these are dependencies that are hard to bundle in nix, so while everything else comes for free, they come at the cost of complicating my readme with a bunch of requests that the user set things up beforehand).
As a bonus, since it's a single parent process, if I decide to invoke it through libfaketime, the time inherited by subprocess so it's consistently faked in the database and the services and in observability tools...
My feeling for systemd is that it's more for system-level stuff and less for project-level dependencies. Like, if I have separate projects which need different versions of postgres, systemd commands aren't going to give me a natural way to keep track of which project's postgres I'm talking about. process-compose, however, will show me logs for the correct postgres (or whatever service) in these cases:
~/src/projA$ process-compose process logs postgres
~/src/projB$ process-compose process logs postgres
Basically, I'm alergic to configuring my system at all. All dependencies besides nix, my text editor, and my shell are project level dependencies. This makes it easy to hop between machines and not really care about how they're set up. Even on production systems, I'd rather just clone the repo `nix run` in that dir (it then launches process compose which makes everything just like it was in my dev environment). I am however not in charge of any production systems, so perhaps I'm a bit out of touch there.
I'm curious why. To me "We updated our library to change some things in a way that's an improvement on net but only mostly backwards compatible" seems like an extremely common instinct in software development. But in an environment where people are doing that all the time, the only way to reliably deploy software is to completely freeze all your direct and indirect dependencies at an exact version. And Docker is way better at handling that than traditional Linux package managers are.
Why do you think other tools will make a comeback?
I am also optimistic we will succeed in efforts to properly annotate the data on the Internet with useful and accurate meta-data and achieve the semantic web vision instead of relying on search engines and LLMs.
[dead]
I realise apple containers haven't quite taken off yet as expected but omission from the article stands out. Nice that it mentions alternative approaches like podman and kata though.
> but omission from the article stands out.
(article author here)
Apple containers are basically the same as how Docker for Mac works; I wrote about it here: https://anil.recoil.org/notes/apple-containerisation
Unfortunately Apple managed to omit the feature we all want that only they can implement: namespaces for native macOS!
Instead we got yet another embedded-Linux-VM which (imo) didn't really add much to the container ecosystem except a bunch of nice Swift libraries (such as the ext2 parsing library, which is very handy).
Didn't Vagrant/Vagrantfiles precede Docker? Unclear why that would be the key to its success if so.
We have shipped unikernels for the last decade. Zero sec issues so far. I highly recommend looking into the unikernel space for a docker alternative. MirageOS being a good start.
cool! What services have you shipped as unikernels? Docker doesn't have to be an alternative; it can help with the build/run pipeline for them too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkfXHBb-M4A (Dockercon 2015!)
Somewhere along the line they started prioritising docker desktop over docker. It's a bit jarring to see new features coming to desktop before it comes to Linux, such as the new sandbox features.
Is there any insight into this, I would have thought the opposite where developers on the platform that made docker succeed are given first preview of features.
Paying customers use docker desktop.
I'm hoping the next decade introduces more declarative workflows with Nix and work with docker to that end.
I still havent learned it being in IT its so embarassing. Yes I know about the 2-3h Youtube tutorials but just...
I thought it was 2014 when it launched? The article says the command line interface hasn't changed since 2013.
We first submitted the article to the CACM a while ago. The review process takes some time and "Twelve years of Docker containers" didn't have quite the same vibe.
I now wonder if we'll end up switching it all back to VMs so the LLMs have enough room to grow and adapt.
Maybe, but the install will often be done using a Docker file.
The fact that docker still, in 2026, will completely overwrite iptables rules silently to expose containers to external requests is, frankly, fucking stupid.
I dont use Dockerfile. Am i slumming it?
Probably? How do you deploy?
Just pull a tarball from a signed URL, install deps, and run from systemd. Rolls out in 30 seconds, remarkably stable. Initial bootstrap of deps/paths is maybe 5 minutes.
I am so thoroughly convinced that Docker is a hacky-but-functional solution to an utterly failed userspace design.
Linux user space decided to try and share dependencies. Docker obliterates this design goal by shipping dependencies, but stuffing them into the filesystem as-if they were shared.
If you’re going to do this then a far far far simpler solution is to just link statically or ship dependencies adjacent to the binary. (Aka what windows does). Replicating a faux “shared” filesystem is a gross hack.
This is a distinctly Linux problem. Windows software doesn’t typically have this issue. Because programs ship their dependencies and then work.
Docker is one way to ship dependencies. So it’s not the worst solution in the world. But I swear it’s a bad solution. My blood boils with righteous fury anytime anyone on my team mentions they have a 15 minute docker build step. And don’t you damn dare say the fix to Docker being slow is to add more layers of complexity with hierarchical Docker images ohmygodiswear. Running a computer program does not have to be hard I promise!!
Okay, so what's the best solution? What's even just a better solution than Docker? I mean really truly lay out all the details here or link to a blog post that describes in excruciating detail how they shipped a web application and maintained it for years and was less work than Docker containers. Just saying "a far far simpler solution is to just link statically or ship dependencies adjacent to the binary" is ignoring huge swaths of the SDLC. Anyone can cast stones, very few can actually implement a better solution. Bring the receipts.
It solves a practical problem that’s obvious. And on one hand the practical where-were-at-now is all that matters, that’s a legitimate perspective.
There’s another one, at least IMHO, that this entire stack from the bottom up is designed wrong and every day we as a society continue marching down this path we’re just accumulating more technical debt. Pretty much every time you find the solution to be, “ok so we’ll wrap the whole thing and then…” something is deeply wrong and you’re borrowing from the future a debt that must come due. Energy is not free. We tend to treat compute like it is.
Maybe I’m in a big club but I have a vision for a radically different architecture that fixes all of this and I wish that got 1/2 the attention these bandaids did. Plan 9 is an example of the theme if not the particular set of solutions I’m referring to.
[dead]
Comment was deleted :(
Crafted by Rajat
Source Code