HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
docker-archive
deploykit
Go2016–2018
docker-archive / deploykit · Archived

deploykit

A toolkit for creating and managing declarative, self-healing infrastructure.

5Distinct people
6Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
2.3KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

A toolkit for creating and managing declarative, self-healing infrastructure.

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

Mentioned in the same Hacker News threads. That is not proof they are substitutes.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 1:49:46 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by month6 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2016-10-06 10:03:10 UTC to 2018-09-27 14:40:35 UTC.

0122016-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 1 submissions, 1 commentsOct 20162016-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2016-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2017-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsSep 20172017-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2018-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2018-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2018-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2018-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2018-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2018-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2018-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2018-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsSep 2018

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Oct 20162016-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-11-01 00:00:00 UTC211
Nov 20162016-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-12-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Dec 20162016-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-02-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 20172017-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-03-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Mar 20172017-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20172017-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20172017-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 20172017-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-07-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 20172017-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-08-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 20172017-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20172017-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-10-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Oct 20172017-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-11-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 20172017-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-12-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 20172017-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-02-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 20182018-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 20182018-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20182018-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20182018-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 20182018-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-07-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 20182018-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-08-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 20182018-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20182018-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-10-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

6 sources
Docker staff have been saying words to the effect of "we'll make an announcement with info soon!" for at least the last three+ months, across several projects. Swarm, Docker-Machine, & Infrakit come to mind. With no actual announcement(s) then occurring. The commit activity graph on InfraKit - which people are supposed to use now that Docker-Machine has been deprecated - seems pretty clear: https://github.com/docker/infrakit/graphs/contributors SwarmKit is the same: https://github.com/docker/swarmkit/graphs/contributors Clearly these aren't where resources have been placed. Actions are not lining up with the words given. :(
In K3s: Kubernetes without the features I don't care about
Docker has taken the direction of a loose collection of tools tied together by an integrated interface. So you have the choice of using the platform as a whole, or standing up your choice of individual components on their own, without any dependency on Docker. Based on your comment, you're probably not the target audience for the platform. I recommend checking out some of the components to see if they meet your criteria of simplicity. A few examples: https://runc.io https://containerd.tools https://github.com/docker/swarmkit https://github.com/docker/notary https://github.com/docker/infrakit https://github.com/docker/hyperkit We are continuing the work of carving out more and more usable components from the platform.
In Jess Frazelle
Indeed, would definitely be cool to be able to export a specific machine config to a tarball that can be imported on another machine. I don't work on machine, but anyone made a proposal for this (probably with warnings about copying ssh keys and such)? I know this doesn't help with your current issue on docker-machine, but... I think the issue here is docker-machine's primary intent is as a developer tool to spin up dev environments quickly and easily (zero-to-docker as we say), as such the datastore and security model is tailored to this. We are working on production-level infrastructure management, the base-layer of which you can find here: https://github.com/docker/infrakit
In Running Docker in production for 6 months
Docker founder here. > What is the motivation and benefit for running containers without docker? I regularly hear from people who want to run containers without Docker. There are several motivations, all of which are perfectly valid: 1. Learning. It's fun to build things from scratch to understand how they work under the hood. 2. Bad experience. Early versions of Docker were quite buggy, and we initially struggled to keep up with the colossal growth in usage and feature requests. As a result, many of the people who tried Docker in production too early were badly disappointed. Some of them decided Docker wasn't for them, and started looking for alternatives. 3. Extremely custom use case. If your deployment is larger, or more complex, or more specialized than 99.99% of deployments out there, then "mainstream" platforms like Docker might not
Read the rest
be the right fit for you. Of course we try to make Docker as customizable as possible, to support more a wider spectrum of use cases with plugins. But realistically, no single platform can cover all use cases, and I don't think any platform ever will. Docker is no exception. 4. Philosophy disagreement. Different people have different opinions on how applications should be developed and deployed. Docker tries very hard to be agnostic - to accommodate as many opinions as possible. But we can't please everybody. If Docker does not fit your philosophy of development and deployment, then the natural response is to look for an alternative. 5. Competition. Many Docker competitors started out as extensions or modifications of Docker, and over time are looking to reduce their dependency on Docker. I'm probably missing other reasons, but these are the ones I've been most exposed to. These are all reasonable reasons to not want to use Docker. Our approach is that, if you want to run containers without Docker, we should make it as easy as possible. In practice that means spinning out as many of the underlying components as possible (what we call the "plumbing") so that you can assemble it yourself without being stuck using the entire Docker platform. For example: - containerd [https://github.com/docker/containerd] is our low-level container runtime. - runc [https://runc.io] is a standardized "container executor", which we donated to the Linux Foundation as the reference foundation for the OCI spec. - libnetwork [https://github.com/docker/libnetwork] is the low-level networking implementation (including overlay networking which is a very useful primitive for container clustering) - swarmkit [https://github.com/docker/swarmkit] is a clustering/orchestration implementation - notary [https://github.com/docker/notary] is a cryptographic content verification tool, which you can use to sign and verify container images. - infrakit [https://github.com/docker/infrakit] automates the provisioning of infrastructure capable of running containers. Our opinion is that, even if you don't use Docker, by using these components for your own purposes, you are indirectly contributing to making Docker better. Splitting out these components has also forced us to refactor Docker into a more modular, more robust design. We even send Docker employees to explain how to run containers without Docker :) For example here's a talk we gave at Linuxcon: https://linuxconcontainerconeurope2016.sched.org/event/7oHM/...
In Running containers without Docker

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.