I’m working on a feature that would convert the container studio to a native studio type, rather than leveraging the chroot studio. I’m wondering if there is anyone using the chroot studios specifically or if you’re using the container option on Linux. I’d also like to get a sense of how many people would prefer the container option be the default and chroot be an option.
I use the chroot studio when teaching workshops to help keep the lines between what’s docker and what’s habitat very crisp.
Seems the improved process isolation in the studio and common experience across platforms is worth the tradeoff, especially if there’s an option to fall back to a chroot studio.
I’ve said as much in private but it’s worth posting here - I’m basically in agreement with @nathenharvey on this. I definitely think having rootless build containers is hyper valuable. I just definitely don’t want to lose my native chroot studio.
very useful. Although in my case, even chroots are very mysterious forms of containers to many of my colleagues.
I don’t think having a studio container hurts. Like @eeyun, I don’t want to lose my chroot though. Saves me from explaining yet even more strange tooling.
I use chroots when developing on Automate on my linux desktop. There are other people on the team that use a vagrant box for development, which uses chroot also. I enjoy working in chrrot more than a container because it works better with file watch dev environments. Ones that use inotifiy or other similar tools.
That’s super interesting @lancewf. I would have assumed docker on Linux would be using the native Linux drivers and would have about the equivalent performance as a chroot.
Actually I have not use docker on linux yet. I have only had the problem with file watch programs with docker on mac. We have mostly had a problem with developing with angular’s dev environment in hab studio.