I know it’s beside your point, but I want to chime in…
My understanding of the history of fashion is that back in the 1950s America…they were trying to nudge culture into accepting their worldview.
On the contrary, I don’t think that’s how the mentality came about, or was held at that time at all. If you go back to the 1850s or 1750s, suits and dresses (or some older variant of them) were a sign of wealth, intelligence, high class living, etc. They had to be hand-tailored by experts using rare fabrics and dyes that had to be shipped all around the world. Then the industrial revolution came, and clothing was able to be mass produced (usually at the cost of quality). Suddenly the middle class had access to suits and dresses, but the perception that it was something for the wealthy was still there. For many businesses targeting the middle class, the suit and dress WERE the uniform, as a means of displaying how regal their brand is.
And it’s not like we’ve gotten past this. If you go on any of the social media sites with ads, take a look at what you see: some knock-off piece of trendy clothing that’s made to look like a high end fashion brand, but targeting the lower/middle class.
All that said, I’m all for the “punk rock” mentality. Don’t do what your parents did just because society told them to tell you it was important. Stick it to the man, yadda yadda. But I think it’s a trap to assume that the 1950s proletariat felt any differently than the same class of people do today.
As for windows v linux, of the people who are aware of both yet continue using windows, I think most would say that they use it specifically because they have a “preference for something that i can just set up and not have to tinker with” and because they also aren’t making their choice based on “the trackers in win11 or because [they] care that Microsoft is an evil megacorp”.
why does that make you concerned?? I hope you are ok!! I like all software and I love Linux but in the end I love technology and what matters is that I promote software friendship!! Available for everyone!!
Oh you’re young, sorry for the offensive wording. I saw you’re programming and trying technology out - good on you! I hope you’ll never lose your excitement about technology.
It’s quite a political thing, but I am sure you’ll find your way around it.
I know everything about the current status of open source, I’ve read about Richard Stallman, about how he dislikes the word open source, but what we need to understand is that all software can be nice, nya!! And it’s ok I forgive you meow.
In my experience, you still have your same path to your nix installed binaries in the distribox container, so you shouldnt even have to duplicate your configuration. I also dont suspect python dev to be that bad so long as you use venv or conda.
The instructions say ALLOW_EMPTY_PASSWORDS=yes. They also say this is meant for development purposes only, I assume they mean you should build a dockerfile for something more pressing like a prod environment.
I use docker myself on my RPi4, but the OS is on a 128 GB SSD connected through USB3. These SSD are pretty cheap nowadays and (likely?) more resilient than sdcards…
honestly, it’s not worth it. hard drives are cheap, just plug one via USB 3 and make all the write operations there. that way your little SBC doesn’t suffer the performance overhead of using docker.
The point with an external drive is fine (I did that on my RPi as well), but the point with performance overhead due to containers is incorrect. The processes in the container run directly on the host. You even see the processes in ps. They are simply confined using cgroups to be isolated to different degrees.
docker images have a ton of extra processes from the OS they were built in. Normally a light distro is used to build images, like Alpine Linux. but still, you’re executing a lot more processes than if you were installing things natively.
Of course the images does not contain the kernel, but still they contain a lot of extra processes that would be unnecessary if executing natively.
To execute more than one process, you need to explicitly bring along some supervisor or use a more compicated entrypoint script that orchestrates this. But most container images have a simple entrypoint pointing to a single binary (or at most running a script to do some filesystem/permission setup and then run a single process).
Containers running multiple processes are possible, but hard to pull off and therefore rarely used.
What you likely think of are the files included in the images. Sure, some images bring more libs and executables along. But they are not started and/or running in the background (unless you explicitly start them as the entrypoint or using for example docker exec).
I'm not sure why Docker would be a particularly good (or particularly bad) fit for the scenario you're referring to.
If you're suggesting that Docker could make it easy to transfer a system onto a new SD card if one fails, then yes that's true ... to a degree. You'd still need to have taken a backup of the system BEFORE the card failed, and if you're making regular backups then to be honest it will make little difference if you've containerised the system or not, you'll still need to restore it onto a new SD card / clean OS. That might be a simpler process with a Docker app but it very much depends on which app and how it's been set up.
Unless you make your host OS read-only, it itself will keep writing while running your docker containers. Furthermore slapping read-only in a docker container won’t make the OS you’re running in it able to run correctly with an RO root fs. The OS must be able to run with an RO root fs to begin with. Which is the same problem you need to solve for the host OS. So you see, it’s the same problem and docker doesn’t solve it. It’s certainly possible to make an Linux OS that runs on an RO root fs and that’s what you need to focus on.
I think Docker is a tool, and it depends on how you implement said tool. You can use Docker in ways that make your infra more complicated, less efficient, and more bloated with little benefit, if not a loss of benefits. You can also use it in a way that promotes high uptime, fail-overs, responsible upgrades, etc. Just “Docker” as-is does not solve problems or introduce problems. It’s how you use it.
Lots of people see Docker as the “just buy a Mac” of infra. It doesn’t make all your issues magically go away. Me, personally, I have a good understanding of what my OS is doing, and what software generally needs to run well. So for personal stuff where downtime for upgrades means that I, myself, can’t use a service while it’s upgrading, I don’t see much benefit for Docker. I’m happy to solve problems if I run into them, also.
However, in high-uptime environments, I would probably set up a k8s environment with heavy use of Docker. I’d implement integration tests with new images and ensure that regressions aren’t being introduced as things go out with a CI/CD pipeline. I’d leverage k8s to do A-B upgrades for zero downtime deploys, and depending on my needs, I might use an elastic stack.
So personally, my use of Docker would be for responsible shipping and deploys. Docker or not, I still have an underlying Linux OS to solve problems for; they’re just housed inside a container. It could be argued that you could use a first-party upstream Docker image for less friction, but in my experience, I eventually want to tweak things, and I would rather roll my own images.
For SoC boards, resources are already at a premium, so I prefer to run on metal for most of my personal services. I understand that we have very large SoC boards that we can use now, but I still like to take a simpler, minimalist approach with little bloat. Plus, it’s easier to keep track of things with systemd services and logs anyway, since it uniformly works the way it should.
Just my $0.02. I know plenty of folks would think differently, and I encourage that. Just do what gives you the most success in the end 👍
linux
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.