Do containers mark the beginning of the end for VMS and possibly C# and Java ?
-
I manfully resisted the urge to go full-bore grammar-fascist and insist that "VM's" was the proper plural form. I am a former VAX/VMS system manager from the VMS 3.x days when men were men, women were women, and disk drives were the size of washing machines.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Surely you mean "VMs" unless you are referring to something they possess. From 1989 to 2002, along with doing development, I was a system manager for various systems running 5.x, 6.x, and 7.x . And don't forget to mention 9-track tape reels. Now I have four small OpenVMS systems purchased via Ebay running versions 7.2 (AlphaServer 800), 7.3 (MicroVAX 3100), 8.3 (AlphaServer DS10L), and 8.4 (Integrity rx1620, Itanium) to keep from getting too rusty.
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
Surely you mean "VMs" unless you are referring to something they possess.
This is probably one of those cases where I'm showing my age. For me the plural form of an acronym was always ACRONYM's. Hmm. Applying the "Google is your friend" rule, it seems we're both right/wrong: FAQs on Style - The New York Times[^] If you write an abbreviation as C.P.A., the plural form is C.P.A.'s. If you write it as CPA, the plural is CPAs. Learn something new every day.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
Surely you mean "VMs" unless you are referring to something they possess.
This is probably one of those cases where I'm showing my age. For me the plural form of an acronym was always ACRONYM's. Hmm. Applying the "Google is your friend" rule, it seems we're both right/wrong: FAQs on Style - The New York Times[^] If you write an abbreviation as C.P.A., the plural form is C.P.A.'s. If you write it as CPA, the plural is CPAs. Learn something new every day.
Software Zen:
delete this;Well, it's only an acronym if it's pronounced ( e.g. RAM ) otherwise, it's initialization ( e.g. CPU ). An apostrophe is never used for pluralization.
greengrocer's apostrophe : An incorrectly used apostrophe, especially one mistakenly used to form the plural of a noun,Similarly, I expect that headline writers have traditionally used such nonsense in order to write plurals in ALL CAP'S -
One of the main advantages of C# and Java is their use of a virtual machine. It abstracts the dependency on the underlying hardware. But dont containers also do that by allowing us to have whatever OS we want independent of the underlying operating system OS ? So why do we continue to use VMS in a world of containers ? And if the use of VMS goes , does that mean the writing is on the walls for languages that use them, such as C# and Java, or will we simply see a move away from the vm and revert to having the code more tightly coupled to the underlying OS ?
Hmm, I have a colleague who is a great believer in containers. However, I have yet to find any use case for them in my work, even though I use VMs extensively and have done for many, many years. It has been a very long time since any of the true hypervisors have consumed significant amounts of the hosts available resources (certainly the bare metal ones anyway, like ESX) and the sheer hassle of coming up with a working Docker image of my dev environment say, that I can replicate easily between my various workplaces and machines is much greater the just cloning a complete VM and spinning it up, and for on-going development I just use Nextcloud to replicate the work between multiple (virtual and/or physical) machines to make sure they all keep in step, and write occasional updates to my GIT repository by way of additional backup (itself running in a linux VM that is hosted on one of my ESXi hosts - that also hosts my DC, my SQL server, a mail server for some of my clients, a 3CX phone exchange and a Nextcloud instance that I and some of my clients use - all on an old I7 with 32Gb RAM). I use VMs to replicate the entire working structure of one of my clients, so I can develop in a replica of their production environment without risk to their setup and yet be confident that when I deploy, things will work. Despite the incredible hype surrounding Docker (and to some extend Kubernetes) I have yet to find any instance when Docker was a better fit for me. My colleague, despite insisting that containers would be much better and more productive, has never been able to explain exactly how it would help me. So my answer is "No" 8)
-
One of the main advantages of C# and Java is their use of a virtual machine. It abstracts the dependency on the underlying hardware. But dont containers also do that by allowing us to have whatever OS we want independent of the underlying operating system OS ? So why do we continue to use VMS in a world of containers ? And if the use of VMS goes , does that mean the writing is on the walls for languages that use them, such as C# and Java, or will we simply see a move away from the vm and revert to having the code more tightly coupled to the underlying OS ?
> But dont containers also do that by allowing us to have whatever OS we want independent of the underlying operating system OS ? NOT. Container completely depends from underlying OS. If you made program on Win7, you have to deploy container image on the same OS. Opposite to compiled C# program, which can work ANYWHERE where you installed .NET (what is way smaller than a whole OS).
-
The best known container solution, Docker, is primarily suited for back end servers, command line interface. You may run a web server in a container, to get sort of a GUI interface, but at a performance, and with a functionality/flexibility far below what you would expect from a native GUI application. Also, HTML specs are so fuzzy that we are still fighting with browser incompatibilities. Now that we no longer have IE6 as a scapegoat, noone wants to reveal that there are, and have always been, incompatibilities among the other browsers. (It seems to be much more proper to say "Can't you just tell your users to use Google Chrome?" than it was to say "Can't you just tell your users to use IE6?", even though the logic is the same.) You can run an X.11 client in a Docker container, but X.11 servers (i.e. front ends - X.11 terminology is somewhat strange) are not very widespread nowadays, in particular in Windows environments. X.11 handles mouse/screen only; any other I/O requires a different model. Adapting a GUI application from almost any other framework to X.11 is likely to require a major rewrite. Docker is essentially a *nix thing. The interface with the host is very much according to *nix structure and philosophy. There is a Windows Docker, but the MS guys had to give up mapping all Windows functions onto that *nix host interface, and made their own. But this host interface is way from stable, and is updated with every new Windows release, so every half year you have to rebuild all your Windows Docker images fit the new host OS version. Not much virtualization there... And even with that Windows specific host interface, you can only run CLI windows applications - no GUI. (Windows Docker can run Linux containers, though, but of course not the other way around: The Linux community won't touch the Windows variant with a ten foot pole.) Even if you stick to Linux: Docker provides no virtualization of the CPU. The executable code is "bare", and run directly on the CPU. You can't run 64 bit code on a 32 bit CPU, or an ARM container on an Intel CPU. A container is exactly identical every time it starts up. It has a file system, but any changes made during execution are temporary, disappearing when the container terminates. You cannot set preferences, maintain a list of last files processed etc. in the container; all data to modified permanently must be maintained outside the container, either by mapping a host directory at run time (which creates certain problems with OSes differing from
-
One of the main advantages of C# and Java is their use of a virtual machine. It abstracts the dependency on the underlying hardware. But dont containers also do that by allowing us to have whatever OS we want independent of the underlying operating system OS ? So why do we continue to use VMS in a world of containers ? And if the use of VMS goes , does that mean the writing is on the walls for languages that use them, such as C# and Java, or will we simply see a move away from the vm and revert to having the code more tightly coupled to the underlying OS ?
.NET doesn't even use a VM. 🤣
-
One of the main advantages of C# and Java is their use of a virtual machine. It abstracts the dependency on the underlying hardware. But dont containers also do that by allowing us to have whatever OS we want independent of the underlying operating system OS ? So why do we continue to use VMS in a world of containers ? And if the use of VMS goes , does that mean the writing is on the walls for languages that use them, such as C# and Java, or will we simply see a move away from the vm and revert to having the code more tightly coupled to the underlying OS ?
You're kinda hovering on the idea, but it was close but not cigar. Java and .NET Core (not really C#) are meant to be platform agnostic as they compile themselves to an Intermediate Language (bytecode for Java and CIL for .NET) before being executed by their runtimes. All other hardware is seen through a Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) which hides the details and intricacies from the software. VMWare and EC2, on the other hand, abstract a full PC environment into a virtual solution which also includes the operating system. Is this last component that really makes a differences and the reason this solutions will never go away. Docker on the other hand is simply a simulation created on Linux to trick software into thinking that they are isolated from the hardware, but actually are just a Linux process shielded with lots of tags and chroots. This does not make the binary portable nor it creates a full operating system, but rather uses the OS from the host. Malware loves this approach and that's the reason it can't be used on dubitable loads. I guess in the end, Docker will change things and Java (or any equivalent) in the future, will look more like Docker, where you'll both create the Java Virtual Machine and a Docker container to accompany it, with a single command aka
java container start com.example.HelloWorld -baseimage ubuntu:breezy
-
You're kinda hovering on the idea, but it was close but not cigar. Java and .NET Core (not really C#) are meant to be platform agnostic as they compile themselves to an Intermediate Language (bytecode for Java and CIL for .NET) before being executed by their runtimes. All other hardware is seen through a Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) which hides the details and intricacies from the software. VMWare and EC2, on the other hand, abstract a full PC environment into a virtual solution which also includes the operating system. Is this last component that really makes a differences and the reason this solutions will never go away. Docker on the other hand is simply a simulation created on Linux to trick software into thinking that they are isolated from the hardware, but actually are just a Linux process shielded with lots of tags and chroots. This does not make the binary portable nor it creates a full operating system, but rather uses the OS from the host. Malware loves this approach and that's the reason it can't be used on dubitable loads. I guess in the end, Docker will change things and Java (or any equivalent) in the future, will look more like Docker, where you'll both create the Java Virtual Machine and a Docker container to accompany it, with a single command aka
java container start com.example.HelloWorld -baseimage ubuntu:breezy
The vms I was talking about was the C#, Java and even Python Virtual machines. I can see how my initial question was not clear , but it has been kind of funny reading some of the replys knowing that.
-
That doesn't make any sense, they're completely different things. Both containers and VMs can run C# and Java applications, but not vice versa. C# ad Java can be used to create new applications, while VMs and containers, well, can't because they're very different things. VMs can be used for work computers, servers, sandboxes, etc. and give you a complete OS on top of your OS. Containers just run a piece of (non-UI) software on the existing OS. If you really have to ask this I suggest you do some reading on the topics.
Best, Sander sanderrossel.com Migrating Applications to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
I was talking about the run time virtual machines that the languages use to execute the IM. Assuming I am running in a container (and of course not everything does) and have complete control of the software enviornment doesnt that take away operating system uncertainties, leaving the hardware to be abstracted. In which case do we need to use a virtual machine at runtime ? Of course that tightly couples the code to a specific run time environment which is not ideal so that would be a good argument not to.
-
The best known container solution, Docker, is primarily suited for back end servers, command line interface. You may run a web server in a container, to get sort of a GUI interface, but at a performance, and with a functionality/flexibility far below what you would expect from a native GUI application. Also, HTML specs are so fuzzy that we are still fighting with browser incompatibilities. Now that we no longer have IE6 as a scapegoat, noone wants to reveal that there are, and have always been, incompatibilities among the other browsers. (It seems to be much more proper to say "Can't you just tell your users to use Google Chrome?" than it was to say "Can't you just tell your users to use IE6?", even though the logic is the same.) You can run an X.11 client in a Docker container, but X.11 servers (i.e. front ends - X.11 terminology is somewhat strange) are not very widespread nowadays, in particular in Windows environments. X.11 handles mouse/screen only; any other I/O requires a different model. Adapting a GUI application from almost any other framework to X.11 is likely to require a major rewrite. Docker is essentially a *nix thing. The interface with the host is very much according to *nix structure and philosophy. There is a Windows Docker, but the MS guys had to give up mapping all Windows functions onto that *nix host interface, and made their own. But this host interface is way from stable, and is updated with every new Windows release, so every half year you have to rebuild all your Windows Docker images fit the new host OS version. Not much virtualization there... And even with that Windows specific host interface, you can only run CLI windows applications - no GUI. (Windows Docker can run Linux containers, though, but of course not the other way around: The Linux community won't touch the Windows variant with a ten foot pole.) Even if you stick to Linux: Docker provides no virtualization of the CPU. The executable code is "bare", and run directly on the CPU. You can't run 64 bit code on a 32 bit CPU, or an ARM container on an Intel CPU. A container is exactly identical every time it starts up. It has a file system, but any changes made during execution are temporary, disappearing when the container terminates. You cannot set preferences, maintain a list of last files processed etc. in the container; all data to modified permanently must be maintained outside the container, either by mapping a host directory at run time (which creates certain problems with OSes differing from
So lets assume my code runs in a container. Not all code will , fair enough. And the end of C# and Java question was a little bit provocative. So anyway I have code that I run in a container. For that code I have complete control over the software enviornment. I cant control the underlying hardware, but I can control the software. SO the question is this. In this case are there advantages in allowing the runtime to assume a specific software enviornment. If I do that doesnt the run time virtual machine essentially become hardware abstraction ? And in that case do we need it in its present form ? I can think of a few reasons why I may not want to do this, but its an argument I have heard a few times and am looking for opinions.
-
I manfully resisted the urge to go full-bore grammar-fascist and insist that "VM's" was the proper plural form. I am a former VAX/VMS system manager from the VMS 3.x days when men were men, women were women, and disk drives were the size of washing machines.
Software Zen:
delete this;How many grammer nazis does it take to change a lightbulb ? Ans: Too
-
If "abstracting the dependency on the underlying hardware" is the criterium for a VM, then PDF readers are VMs, and even some word processors -- in fact, it could be said that anything that transports commands to OS peripheral interfaces is a VM. For me, being in a purist mood, a VM has to effectively sidestep the underlying OS of the computer, by running files on a different OS on top of the underlying OS. Do C# and Java do this? Not so far as I know, they don't; they may abstract things a tiny bit further than a PDF reader does, but it's still only abstraction. They are programs that allow you to open, run, and use certain files. Notepad does that much, for Heaven's sake! So stop calling spades shovels, and the "problem" highlighted by the article disappears.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Of course they do it , the code is compiled to intermediate language in .net and that is executed in the runtime virtual machine. It is this virtual machine that may be impacted in the case of code running in containers since the software environment is now controlled. The hardware isnt, but the software is . In that case are the benifits of using the runtime virtual machine as compelling . Of course not all code runs in containers, and it never will, but in the case of containers are there any advantages that can be gained by having control over the software enviornment? Potentially do we need the VM in its current form (in containerised apps) . If we dont ( and I am not saying we dont I am mulling over the question) but if we dont need the VM then isnt that a bit of a kick in the teeth for languages that use a VM such as c#,vb.net, java, python etc. Will we see an emergence of a language more suited to containerised apps?
-
Hmm, I have a colleague who is a great believer in containers. However, I have yet to find any use case for them in my work, even though I use VMs extensively and have done for many, many years. It has been a very long time since any of the true hypervisors have consumed significant amounts of the hosts available resources (certainly the bare metal ones anyway, like ESX) and the sheer hassle of coming up with a working Docker image of my dev environment say, that I can replicate easily between my various workplaces and machines is much greater the just cloning a complete VM and spinning it up, and for on-going development I just use Nextcloud to replicate the work between multiple (virtual and/or physical) machines to make sure they all keep in step, and write occasional updates to my GIT repository by way of additional backup (itself running in a linux VM that is hosted on one of my ESXi hosts - that also hosts my DC, my SQL server, a mail server for some of my clients, a 3CX phone exchange and a Nextcloud instance that I and some of my clients use - all on an old I7 with 32Gb RAM). I use VMs to replicate the entire working structure of one of my clients, so I can develop in a replica of their production environment without risk to their setup and yet be confident that when I deploy, things will work. Despite the incredible hype surrounding Docker (and to some extend Kubernetes) I have yet to find any instance when Docker was a better fit for me. My colleague, despite insisting that containers would be much better and more productive, has never been able to explain exactly how it would help me. So my answer is "No" 8)
I am talking about the run time virtual machines that .net, java and python languages target .
-
Of course they do it , the code is compiled to intermediate language in .net and that is executed in the runtime virtual machine. It is this virtual machine that may be impacted in the case of code running in containers since the software environment is now controlled. The hardware isnt, but the software is . In that case are the benifits of using the runtime virtual machine as compelling . Of course not all code runs in containers, and it never will, but in the case of containers are there any advantages that can be gained by having control over the software enviornment? Potentially do we need the VM in its current form (in containerised apps) . If we dont ( and I am not saying we dont I am mulling over the question) but if we dont need the VM then isnt that a bit of a kick in the teeth for languages that use a VM such as c#,vb.net, java, python etc. Will we see an emergence of a language more suited to containerised apps?
Andrew Torrance wrote:
the code is compiled to intermediate language in .net and that is executed in the runtime virtual machine. It is this virtual machine that may be impacted in the case of code running in containers since the software environment is now controlled. The hardware isnt, but the software is .
I'd call that a sandbox. To me, a VM has to allow the hardware and peripherals to be governed by a different OS (or another instance of the same OS).
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
.NET doesn't even use a VM. 🤣
All .net languages, java and Python ( and probably others) target run time virtual machines. App code is compiled to an intermediate form for execution on the run time virtual machine.
-
Andrew Torrance wrote:
the code is compiled to intermediate language in .net and that is executed in the runtime virtual machine. It is this virtual machine that may be impacted in the case of code running in containers since the software environment is now controlled. The hardware isnt, but the software is .
I'd call that a sandbox. To me, a VM has to allow the hardware and peripherals to be governed by a different OS (or another instance of the same OS).
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
In all honesty many people replying have been banging on about VMS (or VMs for the pedants) as if I was talking about the traditional virtual server. I'm not, I am talking about the run time virtual machines integral to program execution in many languages. Not really a sandbox , they are referred to by the term virtual machine , hence the confusion. My bad for not being clearer.
-
How many grammer nazis does it take to change a lightbulb ? Ans: Too
Their isn't a hell to hot for you...
Software Zen:
delete this; -
That doesn't make any sense, they're completely different things. Both containers and VMs can run C# and Java applications, but not vice versa. C# ad Java can be used to create new applications, while VMs and containers, well, can't because they're very different things. VMs can be used for work computers, servers, sandboxes, etc. and give you a complete OS on top of your OS. Containers just run a piece of (non-UI) software on the existing OS. If you really have to ask this I suggest you do some reading on the topics.
Best, Sander sanderrossel.com Migrating Applications to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
-
One of the main advantages of C# and Java is their use of a virtual machine. It abstracts the dependency on the underlying hardware. But dont containers also do that by allowing us to have whatever OS we want independent of the underlying operating system OS ? So why do we continue to use VMS in a world of containers ? And if the use of VMS goes , does that mean the writing is on the walls for languages that use them, such as C# and Java, or will we simply see a move away from the vm and revert to having the code more tightly coupled to the underlying OS ?
You're kidding right? First, containers are specialized version of a VM. End of story as it abstracts an operating system. As for the end of C# - the future has never been brighter. We are now for the first time seeing C# penetrating the Linux world. Setting up a project to run in a virtualized environment is super easy today. Between containers and app engines running the language of choice C# has never been easier to scale. I honestly don't know about Java - but I wouldn't count it out anytime soon.
