Boxfuse vs Docker

Overview

Docker

Stacks194.2K

Followers143.8K

Votes3.9K

Boxfuse

Stacks4

Followers10

Votes0

Boxfuse vs Docker: What are the differences?

# Introduction
This Markdown code highlights key differences between Boxfuse and Docker.

1. **Minimum Footprint**: Boxfuse is designed to provide the smallest possible footprint for deploying applications, focusing on simplicity and lightweight instances, making it ideal for microservices and quick deployment scenarios. On the other hand, Docker provides a more robust and feature-rich platform for containerization, offering a wide array of tools and functionalities but resulting in a larger footprint compared to Boxfuse.
   
2. **Automated Provisioning**: Boxfuse offers seamless and highly automated provisioning processes, reducing the need for manual intervention in deployment workflows. In contrast, Docker requires more hands-on configuration and management, especially for complex setups and larger container clusters, making it less automated in comparison to Boxfuse.
   
3. **Instance Management**: Boxfuse simplifies instance management by providing a streamlined approach that abstracts away much of the complexity involved in handling individual instances, making it easier for developers to focus on their applications. Docker, on the other hand, gives users more control and flexibility over individual containers and instances, providing finer-grained management options that can be advantageous in certain scenarios.
   
4. **Integration with Cloud Providers**: Boxfuse has built-in native integration with leading cloud providers, such as AWS and GCP, allowing for seamless deployment of applications across different cloud environments. In contrast, while Docker can be integrated with various cloud platforms through plugins and services, it may require more manual configuration and setup compared to Boxfuse's native integrations.
   
5. **Versioning and Rollbacks**: Boxfuse simplifies the process of versioning and rollback of deployments, offering built-in mechanisms to easily revert to previous versions in case of issues or failures. Docker provides similar capabilities, but the setup and implementation of versioning and rollbacks may require more manual configuration and scripting compared to the streamlined approach offered by Boxfuse.
   
6. **Lifecycle Management**: Boxfuse focuses on streamlining the entire lifecycle management of applications, from development to deployment, by providing a cohesive and integrated platform. While Docker covers the entire application lifecycle as well, it may require additional third-party tools and services to achieve the same level of end-to-end management provided by Boxfuse.

In Summary, the key differences between Boxfuse and Docker lie in their approach to footprint, automation, instance management, integration with cloud providers, versioning and rollbacks, and overall lifecycle management.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs

CLI (Node.js)

Manual

Advice on Docker, Boxfuse

Florian

IT DevOp at Agitos GmbH

Oct 22, 2019

Decided

lxd/lxc and Docker aren't congruent so this comparison needs a more detailed look; but in short I can say: the lxd-integrated administration of storage including zfs with its snapshot capabilities as well as the system container (multi-process) approach of lxc vs. the limited single-process container approach of Docker is the main reason I chose lxd over Docker.

482k views482k

Comments

Detailed Comparison

Docker	Boxfuse
The Docker Platform is the industry-leading container platform for continuous, high-velocity innovation, enabling organizations to seamlessly build and share any application — from legacy to what comes next — and securely run them anywhere	It generates minimal images for your application in seconds. They boot directly on virtual hardware. There is no classic OS and no container runtime.
Integrated developer tools; open, portable images; shareable, reusable apps; framework-aware builds; standardized templates; multi-environment support; remote registry management; simple setup for Docker and Kubernetes; certified Kubernetes; application templates; enterprise controls; secure software supply chain; industry-leading container runtime; image scanning; access controls; image signing; caching and mirroring; image lifecycle; policy-based image promotion	Images measured in MB, not GB; Deep and powerful integration; Secure and production-ready by design; Made for Continuous Deployment
Statistics
Stacks 194.2K	Stacks 4
Followers 143.8K	Followers 10
Votes 3.9K	Votes 0
Pros & Cons
Pros 823 Rapid integration and build up 692 Isolation 521 Open source 505 Testability and reproducibility 460 Lightweight Cons 8 New versions == broken features 6 Documentation not always in sync 6 Unreliable networking 4 Moves quickly 3 Not Secure	No community feedback yet
Integrations
Java Docker Compose VirtualBox Linux Amazon EC2 Container Service Docker Swarm boot2docker Kubernetes Docker Machine Vagrant	PostgreSQL Node.js GitHub Gradle Scala Groovy MySQL Apache Maven Linux Golang

What are some alternatives to Docker, Boxfuse?

LXD

LXD isn't a rewrite of LXC, in fact it's building on top of LXC to provide a new, better user experience. Under the hood, LXD uses LXC through liblxc and its Go binding to create and manage the containers. It's basically an alternative to LXC's tools and distribution template system with the added features that come from being controllable over the network.

LXC

LXC is a userspace interface for the Linux kernel containment features. Through a powerful API and simple tools, it lets Linux users easily create and manage system or application containers.

rkt

Rocket is a cli for running App Containers. The goal of rocket is to be composable, secure, and fast.

Vagrant Cloud

Vagrant Cloud pairs with Vagrant to enable access, insight and collaboration across teams, as well as to bring exposure to community contributions and development environments.

Studio 3T

It's the only MongoDB tool that provides three ways to explore data alongside powerful features like query autocompletion, polyglot code generation, a stage-by-stage aggregation query builder, import and export, SQL query support and more.

OpenVZ

Virtuozzo leverages OpenVZ as its core of a virtualization solution offered by Virtuozzo company. Virtuozzo is optimized for hosters and offers hypervisor (VMs in addition to containers), distributed cloud storage, dedicated support, management tools, and easy installation.

SmartOS

It combines the capabilities you get from a lightweight container OS, optimized to deliver containers, with the robust security, networking and storage capabilities you’ve come to expect and depend on from a hardware hypervisor.

Clear Containers

We set out to build Clear Containers by leveraging the isolation of virtual-machine technology along with the deployment benefits of containers. As part of this, we let go of the "generic PC hardware" notion traditionally associated with virtual machines; we're not going to pretend to be a standard PC that is compatible with just about any OS on the planet.

Flatpak

It is a next-generation technology for building and distributing desktop applications on Linux

Lima

It launches Linux virtual machines with automatic file sharing, port forwarding, and containerd. It can be considered as some sort of unofficial "macOS subsystem for Linux", or "containerd for Mac". It is expected to be used on macOS hosts, but can be used on Linux hosts as well. It may work on NetBSD and Windows hosts as well.

Related Comparisons

Boxfuse vs Docker: What are the differences?

# Introduction
This Markdown code highlights key differences between Boxfuse and Docker.

1. **Minimum Footprint**: Boxfuse is designed to provide the smallest possible footprint for deploying applications, focusing on simplicity and lightweight instances, making it ideal for microservices and quick deployment scenarios. On the other hand, Docker provides a more robust and feature-rich platform for containerization, offering a wide array of tools and functionalities but resulting in a larger footprint compared to Boxfuse.
   
2. **Automated Provisioning**: Boxfuse offers seamless and highly automated provisioning processes, reducing the need for manual intervention in deployment workflows. In contrast, Docker requires more hands-on configuration and management, especially for complex setups and larger container clusters, making it less automated in comparison to Boxfuse.
   
3. **Instance Management**: Boxfuse simplifies instance management by providing a streamlined approach that abstracts away much of the complexity involved in handling individual instances, making it easier for developers to focus on their applications. Docker, on the other hand, gives users more control and flexibility over individual containers and instances, providing finer-grained management options that can be advantageous in certain scenarios.
   
4. **Integration with Cloud Providers**: Boxfuse has built-in native integration with leading cloud providers, such as AWS and GCP, allowing for seamless deployment of applications across different cloud environments. In contrast, while Docker can be integrated with various cloud platforms through plugins and services, it may require more manual configuration and setup compared to Boxfuse's native integrations.
   
5. **Versioning and Rollbacks**: Boxfuse simplifies the process of versioning and rollback of deployments, offering built-in mechanisms to easily revert to previous versions in case of issues or failures. Docker provides similar capabilities, but the setup and implementation of versioning and rollbacks may require more manual configuration and scripting compared to the streamlined approach offered by Boxfuse.
   
6. **Lifecycle Management**: Boxfuse focuses on streamlining the entire lifecycle management of applications, from development to deployment, by providing a cohesive and integrated platform. While Docker covers the entire application lifecycle as well, it may require additional third-party tools and services to achieve the same level of end-to-end management provided by Boxfuse.

Boxfuse vs Docker

Overview