• SpeakinTelnet@sh.itjust.works
      39·
      1 year ago

      I have a love/hate relationship with docker. On one side it’s convenient to have a single line start for your services. On the other side as a self-hoster it made some developers rely only on docker meaning that deploying the stack from source is just an undocumented mess.

      Also following the log4j vulnerability I tend to prioritize building from source as some docker package were updated far later than the source code was.

      • Zikeji@programming.devEnglish
        15·
        1 year ago

        The Dockerfile is essentially the instructions for deploying from scratch. Sure, they most likely only exist for one distro but adapting isn’t a huge chore.

        You can also clone the repo and build the container yourself. If you want to update say, log4j, and then attempt to build it, that’s still entirely possible and easier than from scratch considering the build environment is consistent.

        • SpeakinTelnet@sh.itjust.works
          2·
          1 year ago

          If I’m updating the source code already I might as well build my service from it, I really don’t see how building a docker container afterward makes it easier considering the update can also break compatibility with the docker environment.

          Also adapting can be a pita when the package is built around a really specific environment. Like if I see that the dockerfile installs a MySQL database can I instead connect it to my PostgreSQL database or is it completely not compatible? That’s not really something the dockerfile would tell me.

          • evranch@lemmy.ca
            1·
            1 year ago

            I really don’t see how building a docker container afterward makes it easier

            What it’s supposed to make easier is both sandboxing and reuse / deployment. For example, Docker + Traefik makes some tasks so incredibly easy and secure compared to running them on bare metal. Or if you need to spin up multiple instances, they can be created and destroyed in seconds. Without the container, this just isn’t feasible.

            The dockerfile uses MySQL because it works. If you want to know if the core service works with PostgreSQL, that’s not really on the guy who wrote the dockerfile, that’s on the application maintainer. Read the docs, do some testing, create your own container using its own PostgreSQL or connecting to an external database if that suits your needs better.

            Once again the flexibility of bind mounts means you could often drop that external database right on top of the one in the container. That’s the real beauty of Docker IMO, being able to slot the containers into your system seamlessly due to the mount system.

            adapting can be a pita when the package is built around a really specific environment

            That’s the great thing about Docker, it lets you bring that really specific environment anywhere and in an incredibly lightweight manner compared to the old days of heavyweight VMs. I’ve even got Docker containers running on a Raspberry Pi B+ that otherwise is so old that it would be nearly impossible to install the libraries required to run modern software.

      • kratoz29@lemm.eeEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        I love Docker because it is the only sane method to selfhost shit with my Synology NAS, and I love my Synology NAS because it is the only Linux interaction that I have (from my old MacBook Pro).

      • Opafi@feddit.de
        5·
        1 year ago

        Man, I really was interested in that topic, but that guy really can’t do talks.

  • Fades@lemmy.world
    192·
    1 year ago

    Every time I hear this from one of my devs under me I get a little more angry. Such a meaningless statement, what are you gonna do, hand your pc to the fucking customer?

    • FaceDeer@kbin.social
      10·
      1 year ago

      It’s not actually meaningless. It means “I did test this and it did work under certain conditions.” So maybe if you can determine what conditions are different on the customer’s machine that’ll give you a clue as to what happened.

      The most obscure bug that I ever created ended up being something that would work just fine on any machine that had at any point had Visual Studio 2013 installed on it, even if it had since had it uninstalled (it left behind the library that my code change had introduced a hidden dependency on). It would only fail on a machine that had never had Visual Studio 2013 installed. This was quite a few years back so the computers we had throughout the company mostly had had 2013 installed at some point, only brand new ones that hadn’t been used for much would crash when it happened to touch my code. That was a fun one to figure out and the list of “works on this machine” vs. “doesn’t work on that machine” was useful.

    • Platypus@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      6·
      1 year ago

      doesn’t understand that this is a useful first step in debugging

      reacts with anger when devs don’t magically have an instant fix to a vague bug

      Yep, that’s a manager

  • Palacegalleryratio [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    6·
    1 year ago

    You know what, this is on us. Chat GPT is just a prediction engine that tries to say what words it thinks follow a preceding prompt, and it’s looked at millions of examples (written by us) and it’s seen hapless clients and users complain about bugs and be told: “user error, works fine” so often chatGPT just thinks it’s just the culturally accepted polite response to a bug report, in the same way as responding to “thank you” with “you’re welcome”. This is a dark mirror on our profession.