Docker not ready for primetime

Re:Docker not ready for primetime by tptacek on Sunday August 28, 2016 @05:05PM (#12378532)

Being able to rebuild critical infrastructure from source, and know that you'll be able to reliably deploy it, is a _huge_ win for security.

After a bunch of harrowing experiences with clients, I'm pretty close to believing "using packages for critical infrastructure is a bad idea".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Docker not ready for primetime by helloiamaperson on Sunday August 28, 2016 @07:03PM (#12378964)

Being able to rebuild critical infrastructure from source, and know that you'll be able to reliably deploy it, is a _huge_ win for security.

In that case, you might be interested in bosh: http://bosh.io/docs/problems.html (the tool that enables the workflow jacques_chester was describing). It embraces the idea of reliably building from source for the exact reasons you've mentioned.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Docker not ready for primetime by Gigablah on Monday August 29, 2016 @12:04AM (#12379943)

I'm confused now, earlier you recommended patches over rebuilding continuously from source, but this seems like the opposite?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Docker not ready for primetime by Noumenon72 on Sunday August 28, 2016 @10:16PM (#12379574)

What does "packages" mean here? Sorry.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Docker not ready for primetime by edmccard on Monday August 29, 2016 @01:26AM (#12380180)

My guess is that "packages" is shorthand for "binary packages", as opposed to being able to redeploy from source.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Docker not ready for primetime by tptacek on Monday August 29, 2016 @01:07PM (#12383312)

Nod.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Docker not ready for primetime by Gigablah on Monday August 29, 2016 @12:01AM (#12379939)

I'm guessing they meant to write "patches".

[ Parent | on HN ]