dockerc

How "fat" are the packed machines? In other words, how much bloat is inevitable, or is that entirely controlled by the base image + the user's smolvm machine spec? How does smolvm's pack compare to something like dockerc [0] in terms of speed and size? Disclaimer: I just learned about dockerc! I can't actually create and test a pack right now because of [1], but I love the idea of using this to distribute applications you might otherwise use a Docker image for. [0] https://github.com/NilsIrl/dockerc [1] https://github.com/smol-machines/smolvm/issues/159

There are things like this. The things I know of and can think of off the top of my head are: 1. appimage https://appimage.org/ 2. nix-bundle https://github.com/nix-community/nix-bundle 3. guix via guix pack 4. A small collection of random small projects hardly anyone uses for docker to do this (i.e. https://github.com/NilsIrl/dockerc ) 5. A docker image (a package that runs everywhere, assuming a docker runtime is available) 6. https://flatpak.org/ 7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap_(software) AppImage is the closest to what you want I think.

How does it differ from docker2exe [1] or dockerc [2]? [1] https://github.com/rzane/docker2exe?tab=readme-ov-file#embed... [2] https://github.com/NilsIrl/dockerc

See also: dockerc https://github.com/NilsIrl/dockerc

Good friend built dockerc[1] which doesn't have this limitation! [1]: https://github.com/NilsIrl/dockerc

Flatpak isn't really intended for command-line apps. Maybe this is where something like dockerc (https://github.com/NilsIrl/dockerc) can shine?

The main reason Zig was chosen is because the project was started at a hackathon[0] at which there was a prize for "best use of Zig". Beyond that there were also other reasons: 1. I have been wanting to try out Zig 2. It fit the requirement of being a so called "systems language". However having written it in Zig I have a few retroactive reasons for why Zig was a good choice (if not the best choice): * The build system allows to make the runtime a dependency of the "compiler". I don't think any other language has that. * The interoperability with C/systems calls is amazing (in comparison to anything but C/C++) * The ability to embed files * Makes it incredibly easy to make static binaries [0]: https://treehacks.com/ [1]: https://github.com/NilsIrl/dockerc/blob/68b0e6dc40e76c77ad0c...

Yep, this is a known issue. It also existed in the past with normal docker. https://github.com/NilsIrl/dockerc/issues/6

> How static are we talking here? Enough for the executables to run everywhere. So I'm happy for system libraries to be dynamically linked. > But do you even want to distribute Windows binaries? That's what I'm imagining. A windows binary that starts a Linux VM in which the container runs. > Does this include automagically mounting filesystems? Yep, inside of the Linux kernel. Here's what PID 1 looks like: https://github.com/NilsIrl/dockerc/blob/non_linux/src/init.z...

Yep! It works with any docker image!* *: https://github.com/NilsIrl/dockerc/issues/6

Thanks for the bug report! Just pushed a change that fixes it (and made a new release with the issue fixed: https://github.com/NilsIrl/dockerc/releases/)