Re: Docker
- Reply: Paul Pathiakis : "Re: Docker"
- Reply: Paul Pathiakis : "Re: Docker"
- Reply: Ralf Mardorf : "Re: Docker"
- Reply: Mario Marietto : "Re: Docker"
- In reply to: Mario Marietto : "Re: Docker"
- Go to: [ bottom of page ] [ top of archives ] [ this month ]
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 23:21:00 UTC
On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 12:46 AM Mario Marietto wrote: > So,let me understand : docker images aren't compatible with FreeBSD. Imagine that the FreeBSD jails will be not compatible with Linux. Wow,this is true interoperability. Mario, (Free)BSD is Unix derivative and thus standard compliant, look at sockets, IPv4, IPv6, Jails, ZFS, etc. It was Linux folks who invent things that are only compatible with Linux and only until new fancy pancy Linux only revelation is introduced then those solutions are not even Linux compatible anymore. "Progress by Enforced Changes"^TM. It was Docker that did not take other OS into consideration at design stage. It was SystemD that did not take other OS into consideration at design stage, and now lots of application follow that systemd core dependency making them hardly portable to any other OS. What about kernel API changes with every minor release that started around 2.4.11 (I was using Linux 2.0.36 / ~1998 .. 2.4.12 / ~2007)? Look at DRM mess it introduced to graphics driver world. How would you call that interoperability / portability / long term maintenance? Linux by design is self-incompatible. Do you really want us to to follow that "fashions" with a life span shorter than a yogurt? There are reasons for people avoiding Linux. -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info