My question is simple: why use phusion/baseimage?
I've read the site. I've been all over it. It's marketed as better than base, ultraslim built specifically for Docker. With that said: then why aren't official builds using it by now?
phusion/baseimage been out for a while now, but official builds for php, mysql, etc, are still using debian or ubuntu directly... Why?
I'm not finding any simple docker-esque (single instances) packages that inherit themselves from phusion/baseimage. php7 and nginx uses debian:jessie directly. mysql uses ubuntu.
The whole point of phusion/baseimage is to get away from full bloated based "VM" containers.
So, my question again: is using phusion/baseimage still worthwhile?
Reasons to consider:
packagesin mydocker imageunless I know I need them. ExampleSSH ServerinPHP7orNginxthat you mentioned. It's not avm, it's acontainer.containerlike a fullVM, long running withmulti services.Dockerphilosophy is usingmicroservices, and separate them in multiplecontainers, This has many advantages like: fault isolation, easier upgrades, scaling, etc.APT: This fix is in official ubuntu image too.microservices design. I'm sure it will get in your way.I recommend using
library imagesfor known technologies, ie.PHP,Apache, etc. Using this +microserviceswill help your greatly long term. Now if you want to make your own images, I recommend usinglibrarybase imageslikealpine, for being lightweight, ordebianbecause amost all library images are based on them.You have another option called
scratch:You can use
Docker’s reserved,minimal image,scratch, as a starting point for buildingcontainers. Using thescratchimage signals to the build process that you want the next command in theDockerfileto be thefirst filesystem layerin yourimage.While
scratchappears inDocker’s repository on thehub, you can’tpullit, run it, or tag any image with the namescratch. Instead, you can refer to it in yourDockerfile.