Re: If we are so opposed to Docker and Kubernetes, what is the real alternative on BSD?

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 AM 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 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."
>
> <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
>
>
>

-- 
Mario.