this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024
20 points (85.7% liked)
Technology
59405 readers
2892 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I did this a few years ago for fun. It was a horrible idea, save for one singular use-case: tiny, few layers, single arch, and open-source.
The TLDR from my own experience: auth won't work, complex images won't work reliably, push won't work, multiarch breaks, inspect breaks, meaning things like Helm won't work, and most clients won't work. Its basically just for show, and shouldn't be done.
I'm sure I'm missing a few things, but for practical purposes, it's not useful unless you're using it for something hyper specific, at which point you may as well use the 'export' function to ship containers everywhere, which of course removes all the convenience of the container workflow.
Sure, it works, and maybe download speeds for the file are faster, but that's it. Everything else is broken, and then you can't simply do a "docker pull" to update again in the future.
If you're considering S3, why not just use AWS' container registry?
Interesting summary, although not really an unexpected result.
Side note: I like your username.