And i should say I love SmartOS, it is a really cool bit of tech... I just love simplicity more, and a compatibility layer is never simple.
If linux comes out with tools remotely approaching the quality of either freebsd or solaris planning everyone should drop what they're doing to go watch. Linux ain't gonna improve itself, and the pains of docker are an excellent entry to pressuring linux devs to do anything that can improve userspace experience, an otherwise deeply unlikely prospect. It took them more than a decade to implement basic jailing after BSDs and the tech is still, shall we say, extremely rough....
The ancient rhel something something doesn’t like the debian other thing, and I even saw a changelog about broken kernel compatibility and flipping a flag in proc or cmdline but then I forgot what it said.
Whatever. Life is short. Docker is in no way independent of the host kernel. Spend time debugging something else.
SmartOS is great though. I wish they’d take over the world.
If the host system does not enable vsyscall emulation, running binaries on such old distributions will lead to segfaults. (Which can be resolved by booting the host kernel with vsyscall=emulate.)
I would love any details you can provide; that sounds interesting. (I'm an OS nerd)
Which aims to provide something similar as Docker for FreeBSD.
pot is nothing more than a Proof of Concept, a model that uses FreeBSD technologies to implements a typical container workflow: jail, ZFS, pf, rctl and cpuset.
There is no compatibility to OCI standards, but I believe it would be possible to implement them.
Actually, it would with qemu user-mode emulation. This can be done transparently with binfmt_misc, which is a one or two-liner on many distributions.
BuildKit now can now also automatically without any additional setup:
https://github.com/moby/buildkit/pull/1516
But I do understand your point, Linux emulation on FreeBSD may be incomplete/incorrect in places, so you have to address to problems at the same time. Unfortunately, I think this is also what people would expect from Docker support - the ability to pull arbitrary images.
This is really an important point, MS failed to get WSL1 good enough so WSL2 was just a plain Linux kernel being virtualized. Maybe running a some partially virtualized linux kernel(Linux already has modes for this?) via bhyve relying on a host FreeBSD filesystem (using the already developed layering) might be an feasible approach that requires less Linux API chasing while retaining the "native" FS advantage at the expense of some extra memory (bhyve) ?
Frankly, though docker failed to deliver most of its promises, but at least it became a standardized deployable unit.
This is a strange assertion when the implication is that Linux is somehow not "glued together" despite requiring distributions to literally glue the pieces together.
I really don't see how this kind of comment adds to the conversation. As jen20 wrote, GNU/Linux really is glued together.
Linux is great, but FreeBSD are in my opinion both more stable and less "glued together". Since you have a clear separation between the system and user installed packages, there usually are less things that breaks. In my experience of course.
To be fair, I was kind of anti BSD as well before giving it a real chance.
In any case, I really hope the BSD:s continue to grow. One OS is never a good thing, and Linux seems to eat up most of the market right now.
I also haven't heard credible reports of it being slow, except for things it's not really used for (like drivers for consumer wifi cards).
gnu/linux
musl/gnu/linux
musl/busybox/linux
libc++/uClibc/glibc/musl/busybox/matchbox/gnu/rpm/deb/tar.gz
any other distro/composition of software that runs on linux? You see the problem? Linux is a kernel, FreeBSD/Open/Net/Dragonfly are real OS's...with pkg's.
>> FreeBSD's point of distinction is that it's carefully designed and fitted together, compared to Linux's comparatively heavy use of glue.
To which was offered:
> Well Linux is just a kernel, so it's a bit unfair to call it glued together...but the rest (a ditro)...lot of glue and clay...sometimes also pure mud.
So I pointed out that it is fair to call it glued together, because there's no other way to use Linux except with glue. This is applicable to any of GNU/Linux, Busybox/Linux, etc.
Ehm...really? Are you making fun of us?