|
|
|
|
|
by rixthefox
1414 days ago
|
|
I think the point he was making was too many people and projects are turning towards containers as a sort of "end all" where we're abandoning local system dependencies by shipping applications with their own bundled versions of libraries. My biggest problem with this shift is I'm seeing is people are running their distribution updates and containers are still shipping with vulnerable versions of libraries. So a server admin updates his servers thinking he's all good, No, No he's not because $DEV hasn't updated their container dependencies and now that server gets pwned because here's yet another layer of dependencies I have to deal with on top of the ones I'm maintaining with the OS. So no, please don't make containers on everything just because you can, because more often than not the container you never intended to be used in production WILL be used in production because someone was lazy and didn't want to deal with the dependencies. Additionally, to your point, specific node versions? specific yarn versions? Is it really that unreasonable to demand libraries be backwards compatible with warnings on software saying a method is being depreciated? Like I can understand for major revision changes but seriously. I should be able to run the latest version of node and that code still work with warnings telling me that the code I've written will eventually stop working in later versions due to changes in the underlying setup. My point being, don't weigh on containers as a crutch for badly coded software. Operating systems have moved towards rolling releases, it's about time libraries and programming languages followed suit. |
|
And might I add, some people are shipping containers with full unoptimized Ubuntu (or other large distros) for running projects that are kilobytes in size