Docker Considered Harmful (2016)

Re:Docker Considered Harmful (2016) by true_tuna on Monday June 25, 2018 @05:40PM (#17396043)

I’d love for this to be true. Have you had anyone come in and do an audit? I find crazy stuff when I show up at No Ops shops and poke around.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Docker Considered Harmful (2016) by geggam on Monday June 25, 2018 @05:44PM (#17396080)

Last year we had a $NAME come for an audit. Well known company and they did not know how to audit inside containers.

Still not sure how a corporation who runs RHEL contractually is able to use alpine and ubuntu based containers but it happens.

I dont work there anymore and I am glad because when the containers finally do get an audit and the customer is told for X years they havent been in compliance.... well..

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Docker Considered Harmful (2016) by jcelerier on Tuesday June 26, 2018 @02:14AM (#17398278)

> Still not sure how a corporation who runs RHEL contractually is able to use alpine and ubuntu based containers but it happens.

... why would it be a problem ?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Docker Considered Harmful (2016) by andrewguenther on Thursday June 28, 2018 @03:50AM (#17414886)

We've done two audits now, only minor items

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Docker Considered Harmful (2016) by mbu on Tuesday June 26, 2018 @10:03AM (#17400652)

Can you expand on the crazy stuff you've seen?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Docker Considered Harmful (2016) by geggam on Monday June 25, 2018 @05:36PM (#17396020)

Curious... What is your setup ?

AWS ? GCP ? ... managed k8s or you running it ?

Outsourcing your operations and pretending the problem is cured by docker is just a bit silly.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Docker Considered Harmful (2016) by andrewguenther on Thursday June 28, 2018 @03:52AM (#17414898)

Docker on EC2. We had been running bare on EC2 before Docker using a homegrown chroot solution.

[ Parent | on HN ]