The OCI work mentioned upthread is about interface, not implementation.

Most people who think "Docker sucks" are talking about it's somewhat questionable network layer on Linux and the poor security isolation of the daemon. Non-docker alternatives like Podman don't have that characteristic.

But no one (at least no one reasonable) thinks Dockerfile's building docker images for download from docker-compatible repositories are a bad thing. That stuff runs the world. And the FreeBSD refusal to make a real attempt at interoperability is a confusing wart on what otherwise is pretty good tech.

▲

Gud an hour ago | parent [-]

I believe it’s a “bad thing” and prefer my FreeBSD + jails setup and installing my packages using the FreeBSD package manager.

Docker sucks and only exists because after all these years, Linux STILL doesn’t have a great way to handle third party applications.

Unlike FreeBSD, which has both the excellent ports and package systems.

FWIW I am not married to FreeBSD. I use Arch Linux as well.

	▲	ajross 17 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Docker sucks and only exists because after all these years, Linux STILL doesn’t have a great way to handle third party applications. That's... not at all a correct characterization of where Docker found its purchase or what it's used for. Easy containerization dead-to-rights solved the version hell problem of shipping software at scale from vendors and upstreams that can't agree on dependency management. That's not something you can fiat away with "excellent ports and package systems" unless you imagine a world where literally every tiny microservice or cloud backend gadget ends up as a port in a single tree. Basically you're saying "Docker sucks because I don't do anything that needs containers for anything but security". Well... yeah. I guess it would seem that way.