BastilleBSD Vs Docker
Corporations have a problem. They “standardised” on Linux, but there are so many distributions, that all of their software does not run on all of their servers. So they adopted Docker. Now Docker developers have lots of problems:
- Docker developers have to wait for docker uploads, downloads and docker hub. Docker basically carries around a complete copy of the operating system. One of my friends quit using Docker, because it takes up too much bandwidth for his home office setup. In contrast, the basic BastilleBSD container is quite small.
- Developers have to wait for Docker builds. In BastilleBSD, one can build containers faster because there is no need to upload to the Docker process. In BastilleBSD, it is reasonable to develop directly in the container, release to production, and then where there is a bug, clone the production container, and debug it.
- Docker developers have to fuss with networking options. In contrast BastilleBSD containers can each get their own BSD networking stack, along with a hardware MAC address, and participate as first class members on tradition IP networks, using the best-in-class tools. In contrast a big part of Docker Compose, Portainer and Kubernetes are their own custom networking infrastructure.
- Docker developers have a complex backup problem. They have to deal separately with the different volumes, images, and compose files. With BastilleBSD, one can back up or restore just one thing, the Bastille container.
- Let’s not forget about how much energy is wasted on the billions of Docker hub images, uploads and downloads. This will become much more important as people realize just how bad climate change already is.
Eliminating the developer's problems saves companies time and money.
BastilleBSD users can also run Linux containers.
Built using the Forest Map Wiki