So what are you bugging shykes for? You have achieved everything Docker offers, and you had fun in the process. Seems like you're smart enough to realize that.
Anyway, someday in the future I might look back on this and think "ha! someone put all that effort in even though NixOS already existed".
Is critical thinking, even just asking questions, undesirable now, unless someone is being praised to high heavens? Is that what we're down to now?
"ha! someone put all that effort in even though NixOS already existed"
SmartOS virtualization is based on Solaris zones, which existed long before people on GNU/Linux even realized that containers were the way to go. The groundwork, and my own work was laid down long before any of this became hype. Project Kevlar, nee zones was started around the same time as NixOS, and another participant already mentioned that large companies did large scale deployments and configuration management via OS packages, which is both true and correct.
You did not just ask a question as a form of critical thinking. You asked a question leading into a lecture on the technology you prefer.
Docker is just a simple wrapper that reduces the amount of knowledge needed to run a containerized process. It did not become hype because of any technological advantage, it became hype because this old technology became accessible not just for the kind of people/companies that don't (can't) run enterprise class Solaris deployments, but also the kind that don't have 20 years of experience in making robust well managed deployments.
Your process might seem easy and straightforward to you. But for the average developer and Linux enthousiast, there's not much that can the simplicity of the Dockerfile. Systemd or a more specialized system like Kubernetes to run the containers, and a simple script to provision your machine is all you need. You can pick all of this tech up in a few days and steadily grow into more advanced subjects like monitoring, logging, security.
Anyway, you're not helping anyone by just saying "SmartOS is better than Docker+(list of redundant and unrelated other tech)", maybe instead show us a one-page tutorial on how to set up a SmartOS system with a webapp stack (i.e. LAMP, MEAN or RoR) that can be executed by a newbie without a creditcard, registration, trial or phone call.
You did not just ask a question as a form of critical thinking.
Yes I did.
You asked a question leading into a lecture on the technology you prefer.
Only after you left your Good luck with packaging everything, which I have good reason to believe was cynical sarcasm.
It did not become hype because of any technological advantage, it became hype because this old technology became accessible not just for the kind of people/companies that don't (can't) run enterprise class Solaris deployments,
Performing configuration management at scale with OS packaging has nothing to do with Solaris - it works on any operating system which has a Bourne-family shell, AWK, and sed.
but also the kind that don't have 20 years of experience in making robust well managed deployments.
Then it would be a good idea for such people to actively seek mentors.
But for the average developer and Linux enthousiast, there's not much that can the simplicity of the Dockerfile.
That's what distinguishes the average developer. A true enthusiast will go out of their way to become a master of the art, so the assertion doesn't apply to them.
It's easy to hack several hundred thousand files together and deliver them via Docker. But, what happens when it's time for upgrades? Go through the entire hackfest again? Every time?
Anyway, you're not helping anyone
that depends on what your mentality is: if you're a true enthusiast, you're probably reading a lot, and when you stumble upon crumb trails like mine, the light bulb might go off reading what I wrote, and it might just be the clue you need (that's the idea). And you wouldn't be the first or the last person that happened to.
As for me, I'd gladly show how to do what interests you, only I have no blog, and no time to set one up, fight spam, hack attempts, and so on. I can afford one short answer like this, but I cannot afford months of engineering implementing the infrastructure for a blog and hardening it.
And by the way, nice stab at Joyent on your part, but SmartOS is free, open source software, and the entire ecosystem + the 14,000 packages never cost a penny. Even their cloud on a laptop ("COAL") preconfigured image is gratis.
As for packaging being hard... there is such an abundance of packaging documentation for any popular operating system... all you have to do is sit down and "warm up the chair" by reading it. Do you think I learned it some other way?
which I have good reason to believe was cynical sarcasm.
Well true, and I apologize. I have done some packaging for Debian, CentOS and recently Alpine and whilst the systems are smartly designed and effective, using them is neither easy nor enjoyable. Their complexity stems from the fact that they're smart and strict about dependencies. Docker sidesteps this by making images entirely self contained. This might not be your cup of tea, obviously it wastes system resources, but it does simplify the ordeal.
Then it would be a good idea for such people to actively seek mentors.
Or they could use Docker and focus their energy on building value for their company so at some point it can afford to employ proper system administrators. Who then may or may not decide to migrate the systems to SmartOS.
Do you think I learned it some other way?
I don't and neither did I. I just think that if knowledge-intensive engineering can be avoided it is worthwhile. Especially when an operation is young.
I have done some packaging for Debian, CentOS and recently Alpine and whilst the systems are smartly designed and effective, using them is neither easy nor enjoyable.
I cannot write anything of Alpine Linux, as I have never used it, but I have done Debian / Ubuntu packaging and configuration management with packages, and that, compared to RHEL / SLES / SmartOS / Solaris / HP-UX / IRIX, was the hardest to get right.
One of the reasons why Debian and Ubuntu are so hard to get right is that the Debian packaging guidelines are insane: for example, it is not allowed to have packages named in any way other than lowercase; there is no /opt, as the Debian people do not understand the filesystem hierarchy standard and consider it a hindrance, for reasons completely unknown to me.
So now imagine you had to build, say, your own PHP with OCI8 support: you cannot name the package php, nor can you deliver it into /usr, because the next upgrade from Debian could break your production. And there is no /opt, so neither vendors nor other 3rd parties have a place to safely deliver their software (/usr/local is not it, and is against standards).
What I'm trying to say is, you picked one of the worst operating systems, ever. Even RHEL, as bad as it is, is nowhere nearly as poorly designed as Debian GNU/Linux.
Pick a better OS. pkgsrc format is pretty straightforward, and AT&T SVR4 packaging[1] is the absolute best when it comes to doing configuration management. Unbeatable.
This might not be your cup of tea, obviously it wastes system resources, but it does simplify the ordeal.
If delivering software which JustWorks(SM) is an ordeal, then you need to step back and seriously re-think what needs to be corrected. Delivering software should be a breeze, and it should happen automatically, meaning that the software management subsystem of the OS should worry about it for you. But that also requires you to seriously revise how you put software together, because if it's an ordeal for you, something is majorly wrong. (Since I don't know your situation, I cannot comment what.)
Or they could use Docker and focus their energy on building value for their company so at some point it can afford to employ proper system administrators. Who then may or may not decide to migrate the systems to SmartOS.
This line of thinking, is, in my experience, completely, utterly incorrect on several levels:
developers should not act as if system administration is beneath them. One can never, ever become a master developer without becoming a top-notch system administrator: how can anyone develop software which is correctly integrated and runs on an operating system, if they do not understand how to administer that system? I have seen that over and over and over again in my decades of experience, and I have seen no developer who was able to code quality software which the system administrators didn't hate, because it was all hacked up and required lots of hacking to get working.
I just think that if knowledge-intensive engineering can be avoided it is worthwhile. Especially when an operation is young.
If you do that, it will come back to haunt you. With a vengeance. And the reason it will come back to haunt the company is because it's taking on a huge technical debt.
Are you familiar with the concept of taking on technical debt?
Anyway, someday in the future I might look back on this and think "ha! someone put all that effort in even though NixOS already existed".