the canuck part should be a clue. and I don't mind if anyone publishes what our politicians say. if it is stupid, it makes it easier to call them on it. I'd vote conservative if this batch weren't anti-science school of bush secret police, save the children ideologues, who are cronies of big oil and therefore modelled the current economic policies on third world style resource based exportation; which is why our economy is about to tank as bad as Russia's since they have trashed our eastern industrial base and don't have that to mitigate against. the party they evolved from, the reform party led by Preston Manning (no relation to Chelsea), and which was originally considered more right than its child, was far more progressive in those regards. they promoted increased spending in fundamental r&d, and nothing to do with secret police. the best of the other two contenders, the NDP, ironically was considered really left wing (your Democrats are what our conservatives used to be). but they have since moderated while the centrist liberals have fought tooth and nail lately to be left of the NDP. so this conservative will be voting NDP. the belief is that if they win the current conservatives will be forced to get rid of their leader, Stephan Harper, and they will develop reasonable policies again. two elections ago I voted conservative, but last I voted NDP because I could see where they were going. and now oil is tanking and the final bit of my conservative misgivings have been confirmed. harper has to go. :) unless there is crazy vote splitting, he won't be leading the next government.

Then why do you elect them?

I still program and run a few servers, even though it isn't my day job any more (I used to be a C Unix programmer). I'm trying to understand the benefit vs switching to a new paradigm, to try to use the word properly. It has a silver bullet smell to me. I hope this doesn't mean that Ubuntu will only be available with containers. Otherwise I'll likely have to make the switch to BSD.

To get away from 'vm' terms, we know there can be several app's that might need mysql. So this would act like an embedded mysql server for each app instead of one. Or say like Python virtualenv only different. It seems like it might allow different versions of stuff but it also occurs to me this could get confusing after a while. I guess it's something else to learn, but I can't really see what the benefit is yet. chroot still works for good security.

Then don't slag people for using Oracle products. If you can't answer a question, then shut the fuck up. I don't need to listen to assholes with nothing to say spouting some smart mouth remark instead of helping or passing on the question.

I don't know about containers. It is also why I mentioned databases and other servers. I happen to know a good deal about JVMs. So just because I used Java as PART of an example don't go all aspergers and fixate on it. If you can't answer the question about containers then shut up. I responded to another fucking goof for acting like an asshole and implying I had a problem because I used Java based tools. Having worked on several projects in the last 15 years that had budgets of close to a billion dollars each, I'm willing to bet I have as much or more experience around Java and Java EE as you or anyone else around here. I asked a question about containers using simple arbitrary parameters to see if anyone could explain how they work. Instead I got a fucking idiot slagging me for using Oracle products. If you don't like my response to that, then fuck you too.

Artifactory, Netbeans, Maven, Glassfish, and Java are open source or close enough for me. Are you suffering from self imposed ignorance or arrogance? Either way, you sound like an uninformed dick who is trying too hard to sound programmer hip. I thought you'd appreciate the insult since from your sig you seem to be into cocks. Whatever floats your boat.

So I have Artifactory and two versions of Glassfish on my dev box. But only one JVM. One JAVA_HOME. I also have Maven and Netbeans IDE using the same JAVA_HOME. Why would I want 4 different JVMs installed when one works just fine? And if there is a security flaw in Java and I need to upgrade, now I would need to download 1 update as opposed to 4 times that much (plus other crap like databases and other app code, assuming they want you to just download a whole new complete container whenever you upgrade). I understand the idea of encapsulation and how it can make things neater in one sense, but seems kind of crazy in another to use containers for everything on the server.

So that would mean then that you would need a far larger resource footprint. Say a single server with 4 domains could get by with say (just for round figures) 5 GB of RAM. From the sounds of it I would think you would require 5+ GB of RAM using containers because each container needs a minimum footprint before you add in the resources required by the application. Same for a database. I would guess that it would be significantly more than the original (significantly more than 5 GB), but I don't think it has a slope of 1. i.e. per my quite arbitrary example, I don't think you would then need 20 GBs but still more than 6 or 7 or 8. Any thoughts?

I haven't used Docker before. Does this mean if I have two (or more) servers running on a JVM, that each container will have its own JAVA_HOME? If so, wouldn't that make maintenance a nightmare? Similar for python (or other language) based services? Or items running a database? Each will have it's own MySQL or PostgreSQL instead of just adding another DB to an existing server? Or do the containers sit on top of traditional mode of installing these things?

I was thinking they were orchestrated by the American government in retaliation for wikileaks. The U.S. wants to prosecute Assange so bad I believe they will pull just about any move to get him. And this makes sense to try this way, to the U.S. via extradition from Sweden, since I don't think there is any other country where allegations so weak would ever result in a rape charge. Sweden is a country where political correctness has run amok. Sweden is to the golden rule what America is to capitalism: both good systems but FUBAR when taken to the extreme.

Or Microsoft could move that part of its operation entirely to Ireland and lay off all their American employees. Problem solved, no access from the U.S. needed except for people who use that use Azure from there. I'm sure congress will be behind that solution since they seem happy to have every other job offshored.

Sweden is trying hard to make a name for itself as a place high tech start ups should work. Sweden is a place that will allow them to be creative without fear of undo influence from multinationals or foreign influence. cough cough movie studios cough cough riaa cough cough Assange...

I agree, And to simplify this, testing doesn't prove or disprove the existence of bugs. If a bug is obtuse enough (like most security holes), there is a good chance it won't get tested even in day to day use. Most code over a few hundred lines gets sufficiently complex that it starts to take a real effort to do a code review. Couple that with the fact that one needs experience and/or training to read code and recognize security flaws; and most programs are thousands to tens of thousand of line long, or more. I think you will likely find that there are not very many people (or in this case none) who have the time nor inclination to review code for security flaws, regardless of whether the source code is available.

So for sure this ultimately makes open and closed source no better than the other in this regard. In fact I can make the argument that closed source might get more reviews since people are being actively paid to look at the code day in and day out. While in open source, people often won't look at code if it isn't the new shiny thing everyone is buzzing about. I'm not saying closed source vendors are willing to spend the time and money to reengineer the code to fix found security bugs, which might take considerable time and effort (unless they are really, really bad). Mainly because doing so impacts schedules and ultimately money. It's just that in closed source, people might actually know about it sooner than in open source. But in the end, if a security flaw isn't fixed in 25 years, what's the difference which paradigm it falls under? (That's rhetorical.)

More importantly, other people should be able to reproduce your results (within statistical significance) if they follow your same procedures.