general/other OCI Containers like docker can run on FreeBSD natively ?

The problem isn't the Linuxulator quality. The programs mostly run.

Docker is based on layering filesystems, and that doesn't work too well on FreeBSD right now. I forgot the details, a friend once explained it to me. Something about attribute merging.
 
I'm creating a new distro,called Fuselinux. When completed,you will use 3 Linux distros together (Debian,Arch,Fedora) that will be updated simultaneously as soon as you will issue any easy natural language command. You will not recognize anymore what distro you will use,because the new commands that I will create will be able to upgrade them all under the hood. This idea comes in my mind because sometime a distro can break in a way that you don't have time or the will to fix it. No problem,with Fuselinux,you can continue to use the remaining distros,assuming that they aren't broken. I could do the same even with Free-Open-Net / BSD. In this scenario will be more difficult because they use 3 different hypervisors and I've checked that the better one is bhyve. But I think its doable. It's rare that 3 different distros will break at the same time. Right ? Good. I know that already exists a project like this. I'm talking about Bedrock Linux. It uses the layering filesystem. I know that I should use this,too,but I'm not enough experienced,so I have chosen to create different filesystems on the disk and each Linux distro is connected to the other ones forwarding Xorg or with XPRA (it makes sense to enable the forwarding if it is used Wayland instead of Xorg ?). Basically the three OSes are contained inside a VM that will be totally hidden between the processes of the main distro (for me its Debian because I'm more familiar with it). I will create a set of natural language command aliases. I would like to know,for example,why Beckrock linux and Docker don't use separate real filesystems instead of using the layering filesystems ? What are the disadvantages that there are using "my" approach ?
 
There is one important difference. You can run many Linux-distro's on the SAME Linux kernel.
Examples Linux distro's are "BlendOS" & "Bedrock-linux".
But FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD/DragonFlyBSD use all a DIFFERENT kernel.
Note 1 : docker runs on truenas...
Note 2 : If i want to test a new version of a database , i just install it in a separate freebsd-jail. (I.e I don't need kubernetes,docker...)
 
The kernel could be the same,but the rest of the linux distro is a little bit different,so I can't melt different distros like Arch,Fedora and Debian on the same filesystem. BlendOS and Distrobox uses the docker containers because the file systems hierarchy is different between all these distros. Bedrock Linux does not use docker,but a multilayering file system. So,again,the main file system is the same,but on top of it there are different Filesystem in Userspace. In my FuseLinux (or FuseBSD) I don't want to use Docker or the jails. I want to use FreeBSD as main OS,so bhyve will become the hypervisor that will contain Open and NetBSD and these VMs will be hidden (without the possibility to interact with their graphical user interface (this because I want to give the illusion that the user is using 3 OS together,melted in one only cohesive OS (as the holy trinity,one and triune). Anyway,I suspect that's not the best architectural choice. I imagine that I could use the FUSE filesystems to keep the open / net and freebsd file systems hierarchy into one only file system. But I have no idea about how to do. And I don't see what advantages there are between the 2 solutions if,anyway,I can't melt even 3 linux distros that have the same kernel but different file systems hierarchy.
 
Yes,but why using a layering fs instead of making 3 separate ext4 or ZFS or BTRFS or whatever file system on the disk ? For example on a 600 GB disk,200 GB for Debian,200 GB for Fedora and 200 GB for Arch ? And if I want to use *BSD : 200 GB ZFS for FreeBSD,200 GB FFS for openBSD and 200 GB FFSv2 for NetBSD ? Can I install Open and NetBSD on the same disk but on the different partitions like I did with Linux ? What are the advantages of using Union mount ; UnionFS ; aufs ; OverlayFS compared of doing as I have explained ?
 
It seems that all of these (good) FreeBSD developers don't want you to use Linux technologies if you have chosen FreeBSD as the main OS. That's not good and it sounds like a discriminatory attitude.

I really don't understand why I should be forced to use only one OS or a limited set of tools. I (and it's not only me) want to use as many tools as possible within one OS only. I like FreeBSD for a lot of reasons,but it is also true that there are a lot of good docker images on the internet that can make my life easier. So,why can't I use them on FreeBSD ? Do you want to keep alive the war between Windows and Linux in the '90 / 2000 ?

Probably we should clarify what's the kind of user that can make this kind of argumentation. Well,me,I'm a FreeBSD home user. My position is not comparable with the position of the developers that dislike that the linux technologies are integrated at a various level in the FreeBSD world. We,home users,want this. Because we "love" Linux,FreeBSD,and sometimes even NetBSD,OpenBSD,etc. We want everything. It seems that our mindset is more open than the developers who have chosen FreeBSD for their job.

For sure there are users / developers that are in the middle,like it happens in the political area. I like this kind of person. I'm one of those people. My criticism is against those users and developers that show an exaggerated "love" and fidelity towards a system, whether by ideology, whether by habit, or by commercial reasons. I'm a frequent visitor to various freebsd forums and I often read opinions radicalized on linux technologies that should not enter the freebsd world, simply because in Freebsd there are already excellent tools that do their job well. Yes,they work well,but why not add more and different tools that which would allow the creation of bridges between different operating systems ?
 
ziomario said:
It seems that all of these (good) FreeBSD developers don't want you to use Linux technologies
Click to expand...
No, they simply don't want to waste valuable time and resources to port some half-assed linux 'solution' for something that was already *properly* implemented natively way over 10 years before docker even was someones wet dream...
 
You put the focus on the quality of the (storic) tools,I put my focus on the (not freebsd) users satisfaction.
 
Home users usually are poor people. To have a good computer means often to be lucky. I mainly use FreeBSD because I feel good when I use many of its tools. But it often happens that I also need to be able to have some different tool that I like because I tried it in a different system and I liked it. Docker is one of those tools. Users love it,even today,but it is becoming old. For sure there are good technical reasons behind this "love". The development of Docker on FreeBSD stopped a lot of years ago. And the reasons for that stop is not only caused by technical reasons,in my opinion,but,as I said,even by a form of discrimination. The storic FreeBSD users have been trained using its own tools and they won't change. They don't want to spend money to develop a new/old tool that will enrich the tools park ? This mindset is not focused on the satisfaction of those users that could migrate or that want to try FreeBSD,after having used another OS. It is some kind of sectarian mentality. Yes I can run a VM running Linux,but this will waste resources on the machine. Why should I run a whole VM if I need only to run a tool ? If the tool is not widely used,ok,developing it is not worth it. But we are talking of widely used tools here and Docker is one of those tools.
 
It's not that developers have something against Linux-docker-kubernetes.
It's docker-kubernetes that make life hard for developers to implement it on FreeBSD.
 
I consider docker/kubernetes/systemd linux only "applications". I.e. not cross platform.
Everything which is not Linux is "experimental".
If you want something cross platform consider java & a-bit-dotnet.
 
Like most docker env run in kvm, it is just simpler to run docker inside bhyve nd only have the tooling running externaly. That makes things moe portable imo.
 
ZioMario said:
The kernel could be the same,but the rest of the linux distro is a little bit different . . . I want to give the illusion that the user is using 3 OS together,melted in one only cohesive OS (as the holy trinity,one and triune) . . . same kernel, different file systems hierarchy.
Click to expand...
Biblical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top