On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 3:11 PM, R0b0t1 <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Alec Warner <[email protected]> wrote: >> The containers are nominally stateless, so there is less chance of 'gunk' >> building up and surprising me later. It also makes the lifecycle simpler. >> >> Obviously its somewhat harder for stateful services (databases, etc.) but I >> suspect things like SANs (or Ceph) can really provide the storage backing >> for the database. >> (database "schema" cleanliness is perhaps a separate issue that I'll defer >> for another time ;p) >> > > Containers are stateless, which prevents programs from munging state, > because there is none. This is okay except when one needs state, which > one does for most desktop activities. >
Containers don't have to be stateless. However, if you want them to be completely disposable then they obviously need to be. Bind-mounting something into a container is a simple solution for many situations. If your desktop only stores state in /home then that is probably very practical. You still need to be able to rapidly build a suitable desktop container and easily deploy it in the context of something like a laptop. But, I don't think this was being proposed as a solution for desktops in the first place, which of course then raises the issue that until they do cover desktops containers aren't really a substitute for keeping your filesystem reasonably clean. -- Rich
