[rockyj]

That is a strange title / comparison. Docker images (even slimmed down) have an OS (most likely a Linux distribution), some libs and the runtime needed for a programming language. On it's own a "game engine + WASM binary" is not comparable.

[manarth]

    > "Docker images (even slimmed down) have an OS (most likely a Linux distribution)"

Not necessarily. Docker images can be based from the "scratch" container, and may contain only a single binary. With static compilation, the libraries can be included in the binary.

The O/S is provided by the container-host (which is usually a linux VM).

This doc describes building an image from "scratch": https://docs.docker.com/build/building/base-images/#create-a...

[bogwog]

Seriously, this is a ridiculous comparison. It's apples to oranges.

This site used to have interesting technical discussions, but now its all either AI cheerleading, or vibe coder blog posts.

[adamtulinius]

Maybe it's a good reminder to _not_ bundle an entire OS in a Docker image

[danudey]

FWIW, the base images they're talking about do not contain an entire OS. In fact, they're lacking a colossal amount of the most basic stuff that qualifies as 'an entire OS'. In many cases, your base images are 'a program to install more stuff if you need it', a shell, and coreutils.

[mrweasel]

For debugging image it's sometimes nice to be able to actually do stuff in the container, but for production image I'd agree.

[est]

Some tricks:

docker run -it --rm --pid=container:myapp --network=container:myapp --cap-add SYS_PTRACE nicolaka/netshoot

kubectl debug -it pod-name --image=nicolaka/netshoot

[soraminazuki]

And that's why Docker images are terrible as a packaging format. No sane packaging format should ever prevent software composition.

[andix]

Container images don't need an OS. You can always do "FROM scratch" and only copy what's needed to run the binary. If it's completely self contained one executable is enough.