Should be something stable but I dunno how sensitive virtualization is to age.
Like CentOS, sure it's probably nice and stable, but how much did one miss out on by having your hypervisors stuck on CentOS 7 from 2014 until quite recently.
@quad Definitely do not go with CentOS.
Alpine would be nice, I'm sure, but the lack of glibc may end up breaking stuff (or maybe not).
Hmm... Why not Ubuntu LTS?
@tk @quad Anything can indeed be agile if you install Docker. Docker is a blessing for me, honestly. I run tens of services, and I don't have to worry about manually updating them (through apt, yum, dnf, or else) anymore. I just have an Ansible playbook that shuts the Docker machines down while keeping the volumes intact, and fetches the latest Docker image from hub.docker.com, while reconnecting them to their volumes and starting all of them up.
It's pure bliss.
i support containerization for quick deployment of test environments, temporary applications and isolation of certain components. But I absolutely despise seeing docker pretty much being used as a package manager
@quad @tk I think it adds a lot of stability, reproducibility, and security to a prod deployment.
For example, my Docker "master node" has like 3 or 4 networks that are isolated from each other, and allow services like MariaDB and such to talk to other servers. This way, all my databases are isolated from each other, and if a web service contains a vulnerability that allows the attacker to dump the databases, they won't see much from the other ones.
@crunklord420 @tk @quad To be fair, software engineering exists and very few companies seem to get it right. I don't understand why this is, but I suspect it's the same reason why Docker is not used properly either.
And then everyone acts shocked when basically half the MongoDB instances are fully exposed with no-authentication requirements and hundreds of millions (possibly near a billion) of users information is stolen.
It's actually a bad move from a business perspective to spend the effort to provide security and quality, which is why webdevs running docker is acceptable.
> It's actually a bad move from a business perspective to spend the effort to provide security and quality
No it isn't. It may not make sense in the short term, but the biggest companies on the planet (GAFAM, FANG, whatever you want to call them) use solid engineering principles for long-lasting success.
Generally speaking, small and medium companies don't care about these issues until it's too late, and they're hacked, for example.
Consumerism is honestly kinda more at fault than companies here. We expect brand new shiny things for as cheap as possible.
If either consumers were more patient, they could spend more time developing it. Or if they were willing to pay more, they could hire more people to make up for the lack of time.
Like my Ubiquiti EdgeRouter.
The original EdgeRouter is from 2014 and still gets updated at least quarterly. About a year ago it got a major version upgrade in software too.
Enterprise-grade stuff tends to be hella expensive, but in return you get longer support times and an overall more reliable product. Heck just look at ThinkPads, why do you think everyone buys them used?
The obvious drawback though is that the more enterprise-grade something is, the less it cares about non-corporate things. Like being open source.
> Like being open source
Well, I'd say Red Hat products are as enterprise-grade as it gets, really. I would be inclined to say there's as much open source push on the enterprise side of things as there is on the consumer side of things.
Though exceptions do exist, Red Hat is pretty great. Though hopefully it doesn't crash too hard following the IBM buyout. They haven't gone straight to shit yet, but you just never know
@quad @tk @crunklord420 Microsoft is clearly steering towards open source, too. Edge, Visual Studio Code, .Net Core, PowerShell.
Don't get me wrong, above all, they're companies. They want to make money. They're not charity NGOs. But still, Microsoft didn't strictly need to make Edge and VSCode open source.
@crunklord420 @tk @quad Like I said. They're not NGOs. Of course they only care about money. That's the point.
But again, they didn't strictly need to do it. Microsoft's survival doesn't necessarily depend on VSCode being open source, that's my point.
@quad @tk @crunklord420 CUPS was pretty nice indeed, but it seems like Apple doesn't care about anyone but themselves. Exactly like Microsoft.
And Red Hat is not a saint either, they push open source to outrun the closed source competition, while pushing their systemd, PulseAudio, Ansible, and other stuff to other distributions.
This isn't inherently bad (or good) either. Nothing's ever black or white.
