Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2024 00:39:34 +0100 From: Mario Marietto <marietto2008@gmail.com> To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Cc: FreeBSD virtualization <freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: If we are so opposed to Docker and Kubernetes, what is the real alternative on BSD? Message-ID: <CA%2B1FSijet4G3nS97ZjA6jsZC=SJ5gKzxKxDyqkQUtasCi3Lw9A@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <c849e14b-a612-dc0b-e0a0-0586386aa1fa@redbarn.org> References: <CAHieY7Q2hFoNiruGof81UuomFs5Z%2B6o186d_%2BY8w7JuoQWpitg@mail.gmail.com> <CAAdA2WNFWDUdGR6rboGVBojCx9USPi1oNOFQOw%2ByYOENUek5tQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA%2B1FSijA6w%2BKmxuNcweH5txmKL70ObL9h1OrF_JzTt-JLkVrjA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHieY7SFHAEQVdu75ffdpghXZzsxZqMXaKtxUFS0ZUYLM14yDA@mail.gmail.com> <CA%2B1FSihg2Q_cnpxFpWaPn_M8qziCqMw=o7DWjYWXGR4RKki12w@mail.gmail.com> <CAHieY7Tmw0aqgVSmM5A5zC6ULW4dNANXCqGv8c=kxCzFF9Dh6g@mail.gmail.com> <c849e14b-a612-dc0b-e0a0-0586386aa1fa@redbarn.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--00000000000025380d06105a84eb Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Excuse me. I'm not very experienced,but isn't the L4 or any other microkernel a valid alternative to containers ? If I have understood correctly how it works,it allows multiple instances of the various services implemented within the microkernel OS. How many instances can we have ? For example in the L4 Linux kernel webpage it is explained that it can boot FreeBSD in cooperation with Linux. It works like xen. WIth xen we can have multiple virtual machines. But xen today has been preferred to kvm. And anyway,we always talk about monolithic kernels. So,I want to ask : is a microkernel OS a valid alternative to the containers ? If it allows to run only some services of the "virtualized" os,why not use it ? Why not invest effort and time to implement this solution as an alternative to the containers that FreeBSD already has ? Personally I like the idea of seeing Linux and FreeBSD work together. On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 12:18=E2=80=AFAM Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> wrote= : > > > 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 o= r > > 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." > > <https://github.com/tnorlin/kubernetes/releases>; 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 > > > --=20 Mario. --00000000000025380d06105a84eb Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr">Excuse me. I'm not very experienced,but isn't the = L4 or any other microkernel a valid alternative to containers ? If I have u= nderstood correctly how it works,it allows multiple instances of the variou= s services implemented within the microkernel OS. How many instances can we= have ? For example in the L4 Linux kernel webpage it is explained that it = can=C2=A0boot FreeBSD in cooperation with Linux. It works like xen. WIth xe= n we can have multiple virtual machines. But xen today has been preferred t= o kvm. And anyway,we always talk about monolithic kernels. So,I want to ask= : is a microkernel OS a valid alternative to the containers ? If it allows= to run only some services of the "virtualized" os,why not use it= ? Why not invest effort and time to implement this solution as an alternat= ive to the containers that FreeBSD already has ? Personally I like the idea= of seeing Linux and FreeBSD work together. <br></div><br><div class=3D"gma= il_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 12:1= 8=E2=80=AFAM Paul Vixie <<a href=3D"mailto:paul@redbarn.org">paul@redbar= n.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"ma= rgin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:= 1ex"><br> <br> Alejandro Imass wrote on 2024-02-01 07:18:<br> > ...<br> > <br> > But I don't think anyone really wants Docker and there's the h= ypervisor <br> > for that. The intent of the thread is to deliberate on native freebsd = <br> > orchestration and autoscaling.<br> > I don't think anyone would mind re-writing Dockerfile to Bastillef= ile or <br> > whatever. What's missing is the other part, the k8s equivalent.<br= > <br> I think Docker and K8S and other successful / dominant forms of <br> containers in the OSS world are platform-specific simply because that's= <br> what their creators and early adopters cared about. Adding more forms of <b= r> platform-specific container technology (for example, taking explicit <br> advantage of Bastille or other FreeBSD features) would not be a value <br> add since its adopters would likely still have to support other <br> platforms. To be worth doing, the outcome should be platform-agnostic, <br> allowing a container creator to not-have-to-care what the underlying <br> operating system was. "Write Once Run Anywhere."<br> <br> <<a href=3D"https://github.com/tnorlin/kubernetes/releases" rel=3D"noref= errer" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/tnorlin/kubernetes/releases</a>= > seems to be an example <br> of putting the container-maker first and insulating them from details <br> they won't care about such as what the underlying platform is running. = <br> Good abstraction boundaries make good neighbors, as they say.<br> <br> "We" should not be opposed to Docker per se nor K8S. Linux became= <br> dominant by focusing on what its users wanted to be able to do. Docker <br> and K8S likewise. If we have value to add to that mix, it won't be in <= br> the form of bespoke or BSD-lockin alternatives. It might be in inclusive <b= r> and platform-agnostic alternatives.<br> <br> -- <br> P Vixie<br> <br> <br> </blockquote></div><br clear=3D"all"><br><span class=3D"gmail_signature_pre= fix">-- </span><br><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_signature">Mario.<br></d= iv> --00000000000025380d06105a84eb--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA%2B1FSijet4G3nS97ZjA6jsZC=SJ5gKzxKxDyqkQUtasCi3Lw9A>