Docker vs LXC/LXD
Discussions recommend Linux container technologies like LXC, LXD, and Incus as simpler, more secure alternatives to Docker, often noting Docker's roots in LXC and kernel features like namespaces and cgroups.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
Have you tried incus?https://linuxcontainers.org/incus/
Docker is based heavily on libcontainer (their replacement for LXC), which is based very heavily on kernel namespaces and cgroups. Those features are Linux-specific, and are a very important and fundamental part of what lets Docker containers work. Somebody could totally write another container backend to replace libcontainer that supported the mach kernel or other BSDs or Hurd or whatever, but it would likely require a lot of work (ongoing work, considering the speed at which Docker is changing
Sounds like you are looking for something closer to LXD or perhaps Rkt.
maybe its because docker is based on LXC (LinuX Containers)?!?!
for the love of god - forget docker, use lxc containers - its simple, secure, goes with its own init, cron, and you dont need to do somersaults to achieve simple tasks. Included with linux kernel. Your own isolated linux system. We use lxc in production for over three years, and we have over 3000 of them. No issues whatsoever.
Does OpenBSD have an analog of Docker?
You should check out LXD. It's containers, but they act like VMs (you have proper systemd inside the container) and the tooling is far more sane than anything Docker has. It's developed by the same folks that work on LXC (and despite what you might've heard, LXC is very good).
Docker does that (and so do LXC, Flatpak, Snap, etc).
This looks like a viable alternative to docker, at least for BSD. Any opinions on that statement?
Plain LXC, rut, or docker are probably closer.