bottlerocket VS Flatcar

Don't overlook Bottlerocket, which despite coming out of AWS is not (AFAIK) AWS-centric: https://github.com/bottlerocket-os/bottlerocket#readme

It's also super handy for writing out static Pod manifests to have replace the brain-damaging Ignition as a less stupid alternative to cloud-init

According to this discussion - starting with Bottlerocket 1.13.0 (Mar 2023) new distributions will default to using Cgroups v2 interface for process organization and enforcing resource limits.

Well, the link I provided references the Bottlerocket docs which explains the control container and the admin container and also how you can configure Bottlerocket via the User Data field when launching it as an AMI. All the information appears to be in the docs

https://github.com/bottlerocket-os/bottlerocket/blob/develop...

On the server-side, there's Bottlerocket OS [1] (Amazon). They use A/B partitions for upgrades, and the idea is that you just run containers for anything non-base. Boot containers are used to do custom configuration at boot, and host-container (or DaemonSet, if you run K8S) is used for long-running services.

[1] https://github.com/bottlerocket-os/bottlerocket

Bottlerocket OS.

To add to the other excellent answers, I would recommend adding Bottlerocket to your reading list: https://github.com/bottlerocket-os/bottlerocket#readme

I'm also aware of (but haven't used) https://github.com/siderolabs/talos#readme

I just realized your question may have implied a desktop os, whereas Bottlerocket, Flatcar, and likely the others in this specific thread are server-side. I don't have much experience with trying to solve that problem on the desktop except for the horror-show that is snap

https://github.com/bottlerocket-os/bottlerocket/issues/2855 soon for bottlerocket, maybe you’ll see Amazon Linux 2023 for eks nodes soon too?

I think open sourcing for free labor is a common misconception. Most corporate led open source projects (eg, https://github.com/bottlerocket-os/bottlerocket from AWS or https://github.com/facebook/relay from Facebook) still require a team of employees.

Shoutout to my favorites, Flatcar https://github.com/flatcar/Flatcar#flatcar-container-linux (Apache 2) and Bottlerocket https://github.com/bottlerocket-os#bottlerocket (Apache 2)

Flatcar grinds my gears in that they have their own cutesy (and ragingly stupidly named) Ignition/Butane/whatever instance provisioning file format when they deprecated the damn-near-standard cloud-init. Bottlerocket also has their own thingy, but at least they go wholesale toward static Kubernetes Pod manifests which are much easier to reason about

Sounds like you're looking for the CoreOS Linux successor FlatCar https://www.flatcar.org/

It's actually based on some ChromeOS update tools under the hood but is a regular Linux distro, just super minimal and designed to run containers.

I guess if you found my comment to be "comically hyperbolic" then replying to mine with a "comically reductionist" is fair game

So, anyway, I actually did dig up a concrete example of my experience with it, and I cannot link to the "Additional information" section but that is both why I think the thing was a mess and also why the Miroservices YT joke resonated: https://github.com/flatcar/Flatcar/issues/220

I think the CoreOS boot strategy was decomposed into a bunch of different executables, each responsible for doing their own little slice of the world. Maybe it drew inspiration from systemd in that way. But, just like my real life experience with microservices, it requires keeping a bunch of different projects and their upgrade paths in ones head, knowing their disparate config formats, and when one of them inevitably has a bug, understanding how to troubleshoot what went wrong with the system as a whole

And, again in trying to be reasonable in this discussion[1] I do also understand why one would opt for the data URI, given how much of the rest of Ignition loads content from URLs. I don't believe cloud-init has that remote content paradigm baked into in nearly the same way, so I hear you about that.

And yes, my belief is that JSON is a data-exchange format from _computer to computer_ and making people write them is a poor DX choice, IN MY OPINION. And, to reiterate, I know that CoreOS's perspective is that it is a computer-to-computer transmission from the transpiler-project-o-the-day to the Ignition binary, but that is predicated on one having access to that transpiler binary in all cases, which is quite different from the problem that cloud-init is trying to solve

fn-1: I'm sorry you got hurt by my "tire fire" outburst, and that evidently derailed this whole interaction, but it was my experience