<story><title>Transitioning from Docker to Podman</title><url>https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2020/11/19/transitioning-from-docker-to-podman/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>zelly</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s compatible with cgroups v2 unlike the standard Docker. If you&amp;#x27;re using Fedora, you have to add a kernel parameter to Grub to use cgroups v1 instead.&lt;p&gt;RedHat seems to be pushing a standard ecosystem for Linux: systemd, Wayland, SELinux, GNOME, and now maybe podman. I&amp;#x27;ve been on Linux for a while; it&amp;#x27;s a welcome change from all the fragmentation I&amp;#x27;m used to. Whereas others try to work around the kernel and implement their own things in parallel (see: Canonical&amp;#x27;s AppArmor, LXC, OpenZFS), RedHat just goes with what Linux already has like SELinux&amp;#x2F;cgroups v2&amp;#x2F;btrfs, which I think is more likely to last and just feels better. If RedHat goes away, I&amp;#x27;m fine since I&amp;#x27;m ultimately only relying on Linux features. If Canonical goes away, then I&amp;#x27;d have to switch to a different stack. That&amp;#x27;s probably why government, enterprises, Amazon, etc. still prefer RedHat.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>Shakahs</author><text>What you are noticing is the RedHat “upstream first” policy, and it’s very practical. They try to minimize RedHat specific modifications and instead contribute improvements directly to the original projects.&lt;p&gt;This reduces the amount of code they are responsible for maintaining, and everyone involved gets the benefit of open source collaboration.&lt;p&gt;They have a blog post about it here:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.redhat.com&amp;#x2F;en&amp;#x2F;blog&amp;#x2F;what-open-source-upstream&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.redhat.com&amp;#x2F;en&amp;#x2F;blog&amp;#x2F;what-open-source-upstream&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>Transitioning from Docker to Podman</title><url>https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2020/11/19/transitioning-from-docker-to-podman/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>zelly</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s compatible with cgroups v2 unlike the standard Docker. If you&amp;#x27;re using Fedora, you have to add a kernel parameter to Grub to use cgroups v1 instead.&lt;p&gt;RedHat seems to be pushing a standard ecosystem for Linux: systemd, Wayland, SELinux, GNOME, and now maybe podman. I&amp;#x27;ve been on Linux for a while; it&amp;#x27;s a welcome change from all the fragmentation I&amp;#x27;m used to. Whereas others try to work around the kernel and implement their own things in parallel (see: Canonical&amp;#x27;s AppArmor, LXC, OpenZFS), RedHat just goes with what Linux already has like SELinux&amp;#x2F;cgroups v2&amp;#x2F;btrfs, which I think is more likely to last and just feels better. If RedHat goes away, I&amp;#x27;m fine since I&amp;#x27;m ultimately only relying on Linux features. If Canonical goes away, then I&amp;#x27;d have to switch to a different stack. That&amp;#x27;s probably why government, enterprises, Amazon, etc. still prefer RedHat.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>tannhaeuser</author><text>&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;RedHat just goes with what Linux already has&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;More like, Redhat&amp;#x2F;IBM defines what Linux has simply by paying most Linux devs, and of course they take advantage of it in userspace and sys management.&lt;p&gt;cgroups&amp;#x2F;namespaces, systemd, gnome (and it&amp;#x27;s integration with systemd) plus others are two-sided swords: one one hand they create new functionality, but on the other hand the price to pay is concentrating Linux know-how in one place, and greatly diminishing portability of Linux apps vs other Unix O&amp;#x2F;Ses and even other Linuxes that don&amp;#x27;t want to go with the program of absorbing ever more functionality into kernels and system frameworks for no real reason other than monopolization.&lt;p&gt;Unix was designed as a &lt;i&gt;simple&lt;/i&gt; portable operating system in very short time. With 30 years of development, the situation today could also be interpreted in such a way that Linux devs just can&amp;#x27;t stop to add code. Time will tell if Linux can be maintained if the original generation of devs step down. I&amp;#x27;d feel more comfortable if we&amp;#x27;ve let kernels stay minimal rather than becoming kitchen sinks. Apart from better portability, this would&amp;#x27;ve also enabled younger devs to start from scratch rather than having to maintain daddy-o&amp;#x27;s monstrosity.</text></comment>