Promising "uber tiny Docker images for all the things," Iron.io has released a new library of base images for every major language optimized to be as small as possible by using only the required OS libraries and language dependencies. "By streamlining the cruft that is attached to the node images and installing only the essentials, they reduced the image from 644 MB to 29MB," explains one technology reporter, noting this makes it quicker to download and distribute the image, and also more secure. "Less code/less programs in the container means less attack surface..." writes Travis Reeder, the co-founder of Iron.io, in a post on the company's blog. "Most people who start using Docker will use Docker's official repositories for their language of choice, but unfortunately if you use them, you'll end up with images the size of the Empire State Building..."
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2016, @10:24PM
Docker's official images are switching to Alpine too. [brianchristner.io]
Looks like iron.io needs something else to distinguish themselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2016, @01:58AM
Iron.io actually sells message oriented middleware with RPC support. So, there biggest competition is probably WAMP (which uses websockets via autobahn and others), 0MQ, RabbitMQ (or another AMQP implementation), or one of the other dozen or so lesser-known alternatives and goodness knows how many NIH and language specific ones.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Gravis on Monday February 08 2016, @02:49PM
not making bloated container images isn't a hack. the fact that the images were previously 644 MB shows that these people are hacks. （＾－＾）
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2016, @03:24PM
Hey Soylentils, I know this is a dead thread, but I figured "why the hell not..."
I'm embarking on a "teach myself Docker" endeavor, mainly because I think my usual bag of tricks is getting a little dated/rusty.
You know what happens then--increasing irrelevance in the hype-driven tech world, fewer job prospects, lower salaries, etc. So I figured "Docker: why the hell not?" It's buzzword-compliant and looks pretty easy to grok, given enough time.
Also, as many of you know, there's limited time to learn new tech, so you have to use your time wisely.
Anyone have any insights here?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2016, @05:54PM
Docker isn't really that hard. The way I learned it was by reverse engineering images. Find a relatively simple one, and work your way up to more complicated ones. They are very readable and the documentation isn't half bad either. The real benefit to docker that I can see is that it is very much WORA at the simple end and quite powerful at the complex end. One problem we've had is that when something doesn't work, there is about a 50-50 chance that it is a bug in docker we have to work around, rather than a mistake on our side.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2016, @08:43PM
Thanks for the reply.
I know what you mean about the 50/50 chance of there being a bug in Docker. It makes troubleshoot hard and it requires some confidence to resolve.
Some of the clustering stuff (kubernetes anyone?) looks pretty complex but powerful as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2016, @10:36PM
Oh, one more note Docker is NOT about security or performance, necessarily. There are too many bugs and the implementation too new to be hardened or performance optimized down. Instead, it is about putting your stuff in the proper boxes and scripting stuff. Just like anything else, it has its place and if you don't believe the extremes on either side, you should be fine.