News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Docker in Production: A History of Failure by mancerayder on Friday November 04, 2016 @12:28PM (#12873777)
And this is what is so painful for the rest of us to watch or deal with. This inability for the Linux folks to admit these glaring architectural problems.

Alright, the suspense is killing me: what OS is the one that gets it right? I ask this to "the rest of us" as you put it.

Re:Docker in Production: A History of Failure by X86BSD on Friday November 04, 2016 @12:58PM (#12874040)
SmartOS, FreeBSD, Tredly, etc
Re:Docker in Production: A History of Failure by SSLy on Friday November 04, 2016 @06:19PM (#12876636)
Tredly is "just" a FreeBSD distribution. And Linux can't have ZFS in-tree because CDDL.
Re:Docker in Production: A History of Failure by X86BSD on Friday November 04, 2016 @06:29PM (#12876715)
It is not just a version of FreeBSD. The base is FreeBSD but the tooling for containers is not stock. It's value added bits that are shaping up to be very nice for containers on a more stable, secure, and storage friendly stack.
Re:Docker in Production: A History of Failure by SSLy on Friday November 04, 2016 @07:03PM (#12876950)
Yes, but the storage parts which the discussions are about are from FreeBSD
Re:Docker in Production: A History of Failure by mmagin on Friday November 04, 2016 @03:16PM (#12875144)
Ah, you must be from the alternate universe where most of us have heard of more than one of those!
Re:Docker in Production: A History of Failure by eropple on Friday November 04, 2016 @06:48PM (#12876851)
What you've heard of, and what's workable and useful, do not necessarily intersect.
Re:Docker in Production: A History of Failure by gkfasdfasdf on Friday November 04, 2016 @12:31PM (#12873808)
From the username, x86 BSD perhaps?
Re:Docker in Production: A History of Failure by pmarreck on Friday November 04, 2016 @06:26PM (#12876703)
NixOS intrigues me as an attempt to create a completely deterministic build.