| ▲ | esafak 6 hours ago |
| Who does it right? |
|
| ▲ | jjmarr 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Nix and Guix. Good luck convincing people to switch! |
| |
| ▲ | abacate 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Trying to convince people usually makes any resistance worse. Using it, solving problems with it, and building a real community around it tend to make a much greater impact in the long run. | | |
| ▲ | NortySpock 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, but if the problem you are solving is rare for most practitioners, effectively theoretical until it actually happens, then people won't switch until they get bit by that particular problem. |
| |
| ▲ | zbentley 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | But they’re roughly the same paradigm as docker, right? My understanding of the Nix approach is that it’s still reproducing most of a user land/filesystem in a captive/separate/sandbox environment. Like, docker is using namespaces for more stuff, Nix has a heavier emphasis on reproducibility/determinism, but … they’re both still throwing in the towel on deploying directly on the underlying OS’s userland (unless you go all the way to nixOS) and shipping what amounts to a filesystem in a box, no? | | |
| ▲ | jjmarr 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | I daily drive NixOS. I don't have a global "userland". Packages are shipped from upstream and pull in the dependencies they need to function. That means unlike Gentoo, I've never dealt with a "slot conflict" where two packages want conflicting dependencies. And unlike Ubuntu, I have new versions of everything. Pick 2: share dependencies, be on the bleeding edge, or waste your time resolving conflicts. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | jfjasdfuw 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Plan9 or Inferno. |
|
| ▲ | forrestthewoods 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Windows is an order of magnitude better in this regard. |
| |
| ▲ | vanviegen 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It used to be, but only in cases where your distro doesn't just package whatever software you require. Nowadays I prefer Flatpak or AppImage over crappy custom Windows installers for those cases. They allow for sandboxing and reliable updating/deinstallation. | | |
| ▲ | skydhash 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | These days, I equate anything that ships via docker/flatpak first as built by someone that only care about their own computer, especially if the project is opensource. As soon as a library or a tool update, they usually rush to add a hard condition on it for no reason other than to be on the "bleeding edge". |
| |
| ▲ | robmusial 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | And yet I'm constantly getting asked when we'll support Windows containers at my office. | | |
| ▲ | avsm 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | We've given up on native Windows containers in OCaml after trying to use them for our CI builds for many years. See https://www.tunbury.org/2026/02/19/obuilder-hcs/ for our recent switch to HCS instead. Compared to Linux containers, they're very much a second-class citizen in the Microsoft worldview of Docker. | |
| ▲ | forrestthewoods 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is because your team doesn’t know how to ship software without using containers. If you have adopted a bad tool then people are likely to want the bad tool in more places. This is the opposite of a virtuous cycle and is a horrible form of tech debt. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | whateverboat 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Windows. |
| |
