Split regarding Docker

Submitted by gwolf on Tue, 04/29/2014 - 13:15

I have heard many good things about Docker, and decided to give it a spin on my systems. I think application-level virtualization has a lot to offer to my workflow...

But the process to understand and later adopt it has left me somewhat heart-torn.

Docker is clearly great technology, but its documentation is... Condescending and completely out of line with what I have grown used to in my years using Linux. First, there is so much simplistic self-praise sprinkled throughout it. There is almost no page I landed on that does not mention how user-friendly and user-centric Docker's commandline arguments are — They let you talk in almost plain1 English. What they don't mention is that... Well, that's the way of basically every command-line tool. Of course, as soon as you start specifying details to it, the plain-Englishness starts dilluting into a more realistic English-inspiredness...

Then... Things that go against our historical culture. It is often said that Windows documentation tends to be repetitive because users don't have the patience to read a full document. And our man pages are succint and to the point, because in our culture it is expected that users know how to search for the bit of information they are after. But reading documentation that's so excited with itself and praises again and again the same values and virtues, but never gets to the point I am interested in getting at (be it deployment, interoperation, description of the in-disk images+overlays layout, or anything moderately technical) never gets there... makes me quite unhappy.

Last (for now)... Such a continuous sales pitch, an insistence on the good virtues, makes me wary of something they might be hiding.

Anyway, at least for now, I just wanted to play a bit with it; I will wait at least until there is a backport to the stable Debian version before I consider moving my LXC VMs setup over to Docker (and a backport does not seem trivial to achieve, as Docker has several updated low-level dependencies we are unlikely to see in Wheezy).

But I had to vent this. OK, now go back to your regular work ;-)

  • 1. Of course, plain as long as you agree to a formal grammar... Details, details
( categories: )
David Banks's picture

Nice post. I had problems

Nice post. I had problems pinning down exactly what made me uneasy about it as well. It's true that this heavy presence of marketing was anathemic to the traditional free software culture, and is something that we see more and more, specifically in projects that are free software license-wise but are not primarily volunteer managed. I speculate that this gives most hackers a feeling of something trying to be put over on them. It's not clear to me whether this feeling bears any clear relation to whether something *is* actually being hidden (and I don't mean to imply the converse either; it may or may not a useful intuition).

The more alarming thing is that this skepticism towards marketing blather in fact seems to be dying among 'forward-thinking' devs regardless of age -- the new generation seems to be a generation easily duped by promises of silver bullets.

This may be connected: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/252534/257169

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly. If you have a Gravatar account associated with the e-mail address you provide, it will be used to display your avatar.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <br> <b> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote> <img> <h1> <h2> <h3> <tt> <pre> <strike> <table> <tr> <th> <td>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Use <bib>citekey</bib> or [bib]citekey[/bib] to insert automatically numbered references.
  • Use [fn]...[/fn] (or <fn>...</fn>) to insert automatically numbered footnotes.
  • You can enable syntax highlighting of source code with the following tags: <code>, <blockcode>. The supported tag styles are: <foo>, [foo].

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Keep in mind that all comments will also have to be administrator-moderated. Don't waste your time writing a spam that no one will read.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.