Discourse without Docker?


  • sockdevs

    Continuing the discussion from Discourse doesn't work on most operating systems:

    @tux0r said:

    According to the docs, there is a rule about support:

    The only officially supported installs of Discourse are the Docker based beginner and advanced installs. We regret that we cannot support any other methods of installation.

    If I'm not entirely mistaken, Discourse entirely uses OSS software like Ruby which are supposedly working alike on all operating systems. This rule basically doesn't allow me - and a couple of companies and other users - to use Discourse at all although it would work flawlessly.

    I only use FreeBSD and OpenBSD servers, and while I'm positive there would be not a single problem using Discourse right from the GitHub repository, the fact that the developers stated they won't help me in case of issues (it's a "we don't want you to use Discourse with your server", not a "Discourse will not work on your server") prevents me from doing so.

    I suggest you to lift the ban on sane operating systems just because they don't support Docker or to provide alternative installation methods for *BSD and/or Windows servers.

    Thank you.

    Anyone care to make book on how long this one will last?


  • sockdevs

    Docker runs on Windows:

    And the BSDs have been able to run Linux binaries for years.

    Basically, the guy can run a supported Discourse installation on his beloved BSDs already.



  • @accalia said:

    sane operating systems

    @accalia said:

    I only use FreeBSD and OpenBSD servers,

    No.

    Although the guy has a point - the whole Docker thing sounds like "we have no fucking clue how our deployment process works, and it's probably gonna break, so here's a pre-configured container and you better use it". That guy should be happy they didn't force him to download a VM snapshot.



  • @accalia said:

    (it's a "we don't want you to use Discourse with your server", not a "Discourse will not work on your server")

    Also, probably both.



  • If I can run Alien Swarm Dedicated Server on a Linux machine without a monitor, mouse, or keyboard, tux0r should be able to run Discourse on a Linux machine without a monitor, mouse, or keyboard.


  • sockdevs

    @accalia manages this ;)



  • Closed after about 3 hours.

    OTOH, at least we won't have to read rants about how they're working on supporting different OSes instead of fixing bugs.


  • sockdevs

    rereading that discussion...... damn, and i thought we were hostile to discodevs.



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    Docker thing sounds like "we have no fucking clue how our deployment process works, and it's probably gonna break

    This is the damn point of dockers, isn't it? I mean, there are thousands of variable configurations in the wild, and docker significantly reduces the problems with that. this is imho a good thing (tm)


  • :belt_onion:

    @RaceProUK said:

    Docker runs on Windows:

    And the BSDs have been able to run Linux binaries for years.

    Basically, the guy can run a supported Discourse installation on his beloved BSDs already.

    You state that as fact when it's actually marketing-speak for "sure it runs, just install a bazilion dependencies".

    On Mac OS X and Windows you are basically running a Linux VM inside VirtualBox, because Docker containers are a mix of exotic Linux filesystem voodo and Linux executables running in a chroot environment. To mimic that in native BSD, you'd need an entire Linux userland + BSD kernel support for all same exotic filesystems they're using (some of which aren't even in the mainline Linux kernel).

    So no, you weren't helping. Either he should run a VM emulating Linux running Discourse containers, or he should just go and mess with Ruby directly. Or he can just go and use some simpler forum software.


  • sockdevs

    @JBert said:

    You state that as fact when it's actually marketing-speak for "sure it runs, just install a bazilion dependencies".

    And that makes it different from other complex software, how?


  • :belt_onion:

    I'm not going to answer that until you confirm that you've read the rest of my post.


  • sockdevs

    Ah right, software is only complex when it needs a VM. I mean, Visual Studio installs about eleventy million dependencies, but it doesn't install a VM, so it must be simple, right?



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    Although the guy has a point - the whole Docker thing sounds like "we have no fucking clue how our deployment process works, and it's probably gonna break, so here's a pre-configured container and you better use it". That guy should be happy they didn't force him to download a VM snapshot.

    Because people are too eager to add extra layers around existing crap, instead of trying to fix the crap.



  • Oh wow.

    Slashdot was really leaking if they let that guy get away.

    "Linux isn't obscure and geeky enough for me! I have to use an even more obscure and geeky OS that's even worse! And now this software won't run! I assume, I didn't actually try it!"



  • @JBert said:

    On Mac OS X and Windows you are basically running a Linux VM inside VirtualBox, because Docker containers are a mix of exotic Linux filesystem voodo and Linux executables running in a chroot environment. To mimic that in native BSD, you'd need an entire Linux userland + BSD kernel support for all same exotic filesystems they're using (some of which aren't even in the mainline Linux kernel).

    Windows 10 should come with similar functionalities for process isolation. And FreeBSD already has pretty cool concept of "jails", which could be used.

    I bet Docker people could make it work in different systems if they really wanted. They are just focusing on linux right now because it's the biggest ROI in terms of effort.



  • @RaceProUK said:

    Ah right, software is only complex when it needs a VM. I mean, Visual Studio installs about eleventy million dependencies, but it doesn't install a VM, so it must be simple, right?

    And it's only supported to run on Windows. I don't think you're making the point you think you're making.


  • sockdevs

    And that has to do with my point of 'complex software is complex' how?



  • @RaceProUK said:

    And that has to do with my point of 'complex software is complex' how?

    In context, your point about "complex software" misses the point. It's not just about "complex software," but really OS specific stuff.


  • sockdevs

    Any more of my arguments you want to deliberately misinterpret today?


  • sockdevs

    ooh@! ooh! ooh! i know this one!

    the answer is all fo them!



  • @RaceProUK said:

    Any more of my arguments you want to deliberately misinterpret today?

    Huh? I may have misinterpreted, but nothing was deliberate. I don't understand why the Visual Studio reference makes sense here. If anything, it reinforces the issue. Dependencies or no, it's Windows specific.



  • @RaceProUK said:

    Docker runs on Windows

    ... by running a full Linux VM, and then running inside that. That's a fairly unusual definition of "runs on Windows".


  • sockdevs

    @boomzilla said:

    I don't understand why the Visual Studio reference makes sense here.

    Because you're bringing in totally irrelevant factors. And not for the first time.
    @calmh said:
    ... by running a full Linux VM, and then running inside that.

    And there's software that runs inside the .NET VM, which runs on Windows. What's your point?



  • @RaceProUK said:

    Because you're bringing in totally irrelevant factors. And not for the first time.

    Well...I'm saying your Visual Studio thing was irrelevant. And I said why I thought that. Can you explain the relevance of your original comment about VS, then? It wouldn't be the first time I missed something. But don't accuse me of arguing in bad faith.


  • sockdevs

    What should I compare complex software to then? A giraffe? The Moon? Carmen Electra?



  • @RaceProUK said:

    What should I compare complex software to then?

    I don't know. Why are you comparing complex software, again? I forgot what we were talking about, I think.


  • sockdevs

    Then go back and read the thread



  • I did! And now I'm probably more confused.


  • sockdevs

    All the info is there; I'm not going to explain it anymore. If you can't figure it out, then it's your problem.



  • @RaceProUK said:

    If you can't figure it out, then it's your problem.

    It probably is, but I'm having a hard time making the jump from the BSD / Linux stuff to Visual Studio. Running docker on Windows / Mac seems just like using a different VM to get Linux stuff, which would defeat the OP's purpose.

    The only way to get VS's dependencies is to run the MS installer (does it really have a lot of dependencies in the same sense...what are they?). You can get all of discourse's dependencies externally, though in a way that isn't supported by discodevs.

    Conclusion: bringing up VS is a red herring to the original topic.


  • sockdevs



  • @RaceProUK said:

    And there's software that runs inside the .NET VM, which runs on Windows. What's your point?

    That "runs on Windows" means something different than "runs on Linux". Because they're different operating systems, even if you can virtualize one on the other.

    For example, most people would disagree that Visual Studio or Photshop runs on Linux.


  • sockdevs

    Well, TIL that virtual machine and virtual machine are two wildly different concepts



  • The point is that requiring a while different OS, specifically: the OS this guy didn't want to be running in the first place, is a whole different ball gown than requiring a couple libraries or an execution environment, technically to be installed. For example: what does ‘exotic file systems’ even mean?



  • You learned there are different kinds of virtual machines used for different purposes? Awesome, welcome to computing 101. :clap:


  • sockdevs

    @Buddy said:

    The point is that requiring a while different OS, specifically: the OS this guy didn't want to be running in the first place, is a whole different ball game than requiring a couple libraries or an execution environment, technically to be installed.

    Not in the slightest; it's simply a different quantity of stuff.
    @Buddy said:
    For example: what does ‘exotic file systems’ even mean?

    Ones that are mixed with mango and passionfruit, and served over ice?


  • :belt_onion:

    @cartman82 said:

    @JBert said:
    On Mac OS X and Windows you are basically running a Linux VM inside VirtualBox, because Docker containers are a mix of exotic Linux filesystem voodo and Linux executables running in a chroot environment. To mimic that in native BSD, you'd need an entire Linux userland + BSD kernel support for all same exotic filesystems they're using (some of which aren't even in the mainline Linux kernel).

    Windows 10 should come with similar functionalities for process isolation. And FreeBSD already has pretty cool concept of "jails", which could be used.

    I bet Docker people could make it work in different systems if they really wanted. They are just focusing on linux right now because it's the biggest ROI in terms of effort.


    My point was that it doesn't run on Windows, Mac OS or BSD now and saying it does is just spreading the marketing crap. Sure they're working on getting something similar for Windows proper (it was even in the news a while back), you can only run existing Docker containers when you're emulating the entire damn hardware stack necessary to run Linux.

    @RaceProUK said:

    And that makes it different from other complex software, how?

    Why did you go into tunnel vision about "complex software"? While I can agree that my first sentence might be missing my own point when I really wanted to complain that Docker doesn't run natively on Windows, Mac OS X nor any BSD ( as a reaction to your post here ) and hence you were not helping. That's why I wondered if you read the rest of my post.

    BTW you posted this on meta.d:

    Have you actually tried running Docker on BSD?

    Tell me, have you tried running Docker on Windows or BSD before claiming it works?

    @RaceProUK said:

    And there's software that runs inside the .NET VM, which runs on Windows. What's your point?
    That a .NET app has less pointless layers including a hardware emulation layer?

    Please restate your point in a different topic if you want to go off about what is or isn't acceptable for "complex software".

    Again, in my opinion running a VM to run a container to run some software seems to be too far-fetched, but again, what irked me most of all was that you were deriding that BSD fan with false advice like "it runs on Windows!".


  • :belt_onion:

    if you're having to use an entirely different OS from the main installed one as the abstraction layer to run software, it is definitely not software "made for windows"

    there are dueling blakeyrats in this topic or something.


  • sockdevs

    @JBert said:

    I really wanted to complain that Docker doesn't run natively on Windows, Mac OS X nor any BSD

    Then say what you mean, and I will react accordingly.
    Anyway, the BSD thing isn't quite right; the BSDs have been able to run Linux binaries for years.
    @JBert said:
    Tell me, have you tried running Docker on Windows or BSD before claiming it works?

    1. Docker has instructions for running it on Windows
    2. I never claimed that Docker is guaranteed to work on BSD, only that it should in theory, given the aforementioned fact that the BSDs can run Linux binaries


  • @RaceProUK said:

    @Buddy said:
    The point is that requiring a while different OS, specifically: the OS this guy didn't want to be running in the first place, is a whole different ball game than requiring a couple libraries or an execution environment, technically to be installed.

    Not in the slightest; it's simply a different quantity of stuff.

    Number of oses installed by visual studio: 0
    Number installed by docker: 1
    Oh ok I guess your story checks out.



  • @RaceProUK said:

    BSDs have been able to run Linux binaries for years.

    But not Docker! Dammit.



  • @RaceProUK said:

    I think it's missing everyone here. Can you elaborate? Or will you just insist on us all re-reading what you already said?


  • sockdevs

    Have you tried running Docker native on BSD?
    @boomzilla said:

    I think it's missing everyone here. Can you elaborate? Or will you just insist on us all re-reading what you already said?

    What do you think?



  • @RaceProUK said:

    Have you tried running Docker native on BSD?

    I have not. Have you?

    @RaceProUK said:

    What do you think?

    I think you are secretly glad no one got your point because you've realized in the meantime that you were wrong.



  • Also, while the discourse setup technically ‘works’ on Windows in that you can install and run it without error, it doesn't actually work in the sense of being able to serve up any pages before the browser times out. Mostly due to the exotic file systems.


  • sockdevs

    @boomzilla said:

    I have not. Have you?

    I wasn't asking you.
    @boomzilla said:
    I think you are secretly glad no one got your point because you've realized in the meantime that you were wrong.

    You really want me to explain my point? Fine. I'll use short words so you get it.

    1. Docker is a complex thing.
    2. VS is a complex thing.
    3. Complex things rely on lots of things.
    4. The easy way to put complex things on machines is by using a thing that puts the complex thing and things the complex thing needs on at the same time.
    5. Docker uses such a thing.
    6. VS uses such a thing.
    7. Every item in this list is numbered 4

  • :belt_onion:

    it's easier to be wrong once and let everyone re-read it over and over than to be wrong a whole bunch of times.



  • Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.


  • :belt_onion:

    @RaceProUK said:

    4. Every item in this list is numbered 4

    this is why we need partial likes. i'd totally like point #4


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.