From nobody Thu Feb 1 23:18:03 2024 X-Original-To: freebsd-virtualization@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4TQvw15dTlz58tCP for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2024 23:18:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from paul@redbarn.org) Received: from util.redbarn.org (util.redbarn.org [24.104.150.222]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "*.redbarn.org", Issuer "RapidSSL TLS RSA CA G1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4TQvw04sBFz4s9w for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2024 23:18:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from paul@redbarn.org) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=redbarn.org header.s=util header.b=kKrMlnWF; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=redbarn.org; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of paul@redbarn.org designates 24.104.150.222 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=paul@redbarn.org Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [24.104.150.213]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "*.redbarn.org", Issuer "RapidSSL TLS RSA CA G1" (not verified)) by util.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04CF919CCAE for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2024 23:18:05 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=redbarn.org; s=util; t=1706829485; bh=WscEUpGUNUq605foPEhQmJ+qsXWOMuTQLsJBkNNha8c=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=kKrMlnWFf3qKpAnlItwV77GwOaV4329cDZV9vz7Z9SS8IY5B1F1U5WtbZYdCpdNap HtnaZ2mSpOCtSU6DCyi6A2oPZoBc3SpBDc72Pud1OWm2WcOVF60uvadN6Tcsa0Aqmz nxveGMDs6qRlMV9SRYO+ABBSABccqgSwYNfTsZDA= Received: from [24.104.150.166] (dhcp-166.access.rits.tisf.net [24.104.150.166]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BA11EC3F1F for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2024 23:18:04 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: If we are so opposed to Docker and Kubernetes, what is the real alternative on BSD? To: FreeBSD virtualization References: From: Paul Vixie Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2024 15:18:03 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.60 List-Id: Discussion List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-virtualization List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spamd-Bar: ---- X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.70 / 15.00]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; DWL_DNSWL_LOW(-1.00)[redbarn.org:dkim]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-1.000]; RCVD_DKIM_ARC_DNSWL_MED(-0.50)[]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[redbarn.org,reject]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED(-0.20)[24.104.150.213:received]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:24.104.150.0/24]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[redbarn.org:s=util]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[redbarn.org:+]; FREEFALL_USER(0.00)[paul]; ASN(0.00)[asn:33651, ipnet:24.104.150.0/24, country:US]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4TQvw04sBFz4s9w Alejandro Imass wrote on 2024-02-01 07:18: > ... > > But I don't think anyone really wants Docker and there's the hypervisor > for that. The intent of the thread is to deliberate on native freebsd > orchestration and autoscaling. > I don't think anyone would mind re-writing Dockerfile to Bastillefile or > whatever. What's missing is the other part, the k8s equivalent. I think Docker and K8S and other successful / dominant forms of containers in the OSS world are platform-specific simply because that's what their creators and early adopters cared about. Adding more forms of platform-specific container technology (for example, taking explicit advantage of Bastille or other FreeBSD features) would not be a value add since its adopters would likely still have to support other platforms. To be worth doing, the outcome should be platform-agnostic, allowing a container creator to not-have-to-care what the underlying operating system was. "Write Once Run Anywhere." seems to be an example of putting the container-maker first and insulating them from details they won't care about such as what the underlying platform is running. Good abstraction boundaries make good neighbors, as they say. "We" should not be opposed to Docker per se nor K8S. Linux became dominant by focusing on what its users wanted to be able to do. Docker and K8S likewise. If we have value to add to that mix, it won't be in the form of bespoke or BSD-lockin alternatives. It might be in inclusive and platform-agnostic alternatives. -- P Vixie