Docker vs Fossil

Overview

Docker

Stacks194.2K

Followers143.8K

Votes3.9K

Fossil

Stacks7

Followers25

Votes6

Docker vs Fossil: What are the differences?

Containerization Technology: Docker is a containerization platform that allows developers to package, ship, and run applications in isolated environments called containers, providing consistency across different computing environments. Fossil, on the other hand, is a distributed version control system designed for source code management. It focuses on tracking changes made to files over time rather than creating isolated environments for running applications.
Scalability and Orchestration: Docker provides robust container orchestration tools such as Docker Swarm and Kubernetes, allowing for easy scalability and management of containerized applications across multiple hosts. Fossil, in contrast, does not offer built-in orchestration capabilities and is more suited for smaller scale version control needs within a single repository.
Image-based vs. File-based: In Docker, applications are packaged into images that contain everything needed to run the software, including dependencies, libraries, and configuration files. Fossil, on the other hand, operates on a file-based approach where changes to files are tracked and managed as revisions, making it easier to trace the history of code changes.
Community Support and Ecosystem: Docker has a large and active community with extensive documentation, third-party tools, and plugins available, making it easy to find support and resources for various use cases. Fossil, while reliable for version control, has a smaller ecosystem and may lack the same level of community support and integration with other tools.
Use Case and Focus: Docker is primarily used for application deployment, continuous integration, and testing, focusing on providing a platform for building, shipping, and running software in a consistent manner. Fossil, on the other hand, is focused on version control and project management, providing a streamlined solution for tracking changes to source code and collaborating on software development projects.
Performance and Overhead: Docker containers are lightweight and share the host system's kernel, resulting in lower overhead and faster startup times compared to traditional virtual machines. Fossil, while efficient for version control, may have higher overhead in terms of storage and performance due to its file-based approach and the need to track changes at a granular level.

In Summary, Docker and Fossil differ in their approach to containerization, scalability, image/file management, community support, use cases, and performance characteristics.

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, Fossil

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.

483k views483k

Comments

Detailed Comparison

Docker	Fossil
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	Fossil is a software configuration management system. Fossil is software that is designed to control and track the development of a software project and to record the history of the project. There are many such systems in use today. Fossil strives to distinguish itself from the others by being extremely simple to setup and operate.
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	Bug Tracking And Wiki;Web Interface; Autosync;Self-Contained;Simple Networking;CGI/SCGI Enabled;Robust & Reliable
Statistics
Stacks 194.2K	Stacks 7
Followers 143.8K	Followers 25
Votes 3.9K	Votes 6
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	Pros 2 Integrated Bug Tracking, Wiki and Tech Notes 1 Cheap&intelligent 1 AutoSync - Reduces needless Merging and Forking 1 Dead simple & single binary with tons of features 1 Strong and flexible
Integrations
Java Docker Compose VirtualBox Linux Amazon EC2 Container Service Docker Swarm boot2docker Kubernetes Docker Machine Vagrant	Git

What are some alternatives to Docker, Fossil?

GitHub

GitHub is the best place to share code with friends, co-workers, classmates, and complete strangers. Over three million people use GitHub to build amazing things together.

Bitbucket

Bitbucket gives teams one place to plan projects, collaborate on code, test and deploy, all with free private Git repositories. Teams choose Bitbucket because it has a superior Jira integration, built-in CI/CD, & is free for up to 5 users.

GitLab

GitLab offers git repository management, code reviews, issue tracking, activity feeds and wikis. Enterprises install GitLab on-premise and connect it with LDAP and Active Directory servers for secure authentication and authorization. A single GitLab server can handle more than 25,000 users but it is also possible to create a high availability setup with multiple active servers.

RhodeCode

RhodeCode provides centralized control over distributed code repositories. Developers get code review tools and custom APIs that work in Mercurial, Git & SVN. Firms get unified security and user control so that their CTOs can sleep at night

AWS CodeCommit

CodeCommit eliminates the need to operate your own source control system or worry about scaling its infrastructure. You can use CodeCommit to securely store anything from source code to binaries, and it works seamlessly with your existing Git tools.

Gogs

The goal of this project is to make the easiest, fastest and most painless way to set up a self-hosted Git service. With Go, this can be done in independent binary distribution across ALL platforms that Go supports, including Linux, Mac OS X, and Windows.

Gitea

Git with a cup of tea! Painless self-hosted all-in-one software development service, including Git hosting, code review, team collaboration, package registry and CI/CD. It published under the MIT license.

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.

Upsource

Upsource summarizes recent changes in your repository, showing commit messages, authors, quick diffs, links to detailed diff views and associated code reviews. A commit graph helps visualize the history of commits, branches and merges in your repository.

Beanstalk

A single process to commit code, review with the team, and deploy the final result to your customers.

Related Comparisons

Docker vs Fossil: What are the differences?

Containerization Technology: Docker is a containerization platform that allows developers to package, ship, and run applications in isolated environments called containers, providing consistency across different computing environments. Fossil, on the other hand, is a distributed version control system designed for source code management. It focuses on tracking changes made to files over time rather than creating isolated environments for running applications.
Scalability and Orchestration: Docker provides robust container orchestration tools such as Docker Swarm and Kubernetes, allowing for easy scalability and management of containerized applications across multiple hosts. Fossil, in contrast, does not offer built-in orchestration capabilities and is more suited for smaller scale version control needs within a single repository.
Image-based vs. File-based: In Docker, applications are packaged into images that contain everything needed to run the software, including dependencies, libraries, and configuration files. Fossil, on the other hand, operates on a file-based approach where changes to files are tracked and managed as revisions, making it easier to trace the history of code changes.
Community Support and Ecosystem: Docker has a large and active community with extensive documentation, third-party tools, and plugins available, making it easy to find support and resources for various use cases. Fossil, while reliable for version control, has a smaller ecosystem and may lack the same level of community support and integration with other tools.
Use Case and Focus: Docker is primarily used for application deployment, continuous integration, and testing, focusing on providing a platform for building, shipping, and running software in a consistent manner. Fossil, on the other hand, is focused on version control and project management, providing a streamlined solution for tracking changes to source code and collaborating on software development projects.
Performance and Overhead: Docker containers are lightweight and share the host system's kernel, resulting in lower overhead and faster startup times compared to traditional virtual machines. Fossil, while efficient for version control, may have higher overhead in terms of storage and performance due to its file-based approach and the need to track changes at a granular level.

In Summary, Docker and Fossil differ in their approach to containerization, scalability, image/file management, community support, use cases, and performance characteristics.

Docker vs Fossil

Overview