sdk-container-builds VS dinker

You can also publish .NET apps/services directly as container images [1].

Or you can distribute them as a single file, standalone, "ready to run" application, which precompiles your methods and includes the JIT. This results in a larger executable, but keeps all the functionality, including reflection and runtime code generation, intact.

And, of course, you can install .NET core directly on your Linux system, just as you would for Python or Ruby (where you also don't usually rely on the default installation).

[1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/docker/publish...

If you're using the https://github.com/dotnet/sdk-container-builds tech to build containers, we're working on a 0.4 version of that package that applies this rootless user by default - the goal is that the SDK tooling is the smoothest, least-effort pathway to secure, correct, best-practice containers for all .NET applications!

Alternatively, here's Microsoft's own documentation about how to do all of the above: https://github.com/dotnet/sdk-container-builds/blob/main/docs/GettingStarted.md

We've been baking this functionality directly into the .NET SDK for a couple releases now: https://github.com/dotnet/sdk-container-builds

It's really nice to derive mostly-complete container images from information your build system already has available, and the speed/UX benefits are great too!

Funny you should mention scaffolding out a Dockerfile - internally we'd been talking about that as a bridge to other services that are highly Dockerfile-based. I just logged https://github.com/dotnet/sdk-container-builds/issues/146 to track this request. We likely won't prioritize it for the 7.0 release unless we get huge amounts of feedback that it would be helpful, but it is something we'd like to do.

(Self plug) I had the same thoughts as the author, and made this: https://github.com/andrewbaxter/dinker . Like stated in the article, if you're doing rust or go all you want is to dump the binary in the image. There's no reason to do the build inside the docker vm in that case, and it's super fast, and only uses dumb filesystem access - no daemons like docker, weird wip container managers like buildah, etc.

Self hoisting here, I put this together to make it easier to generate single (extra) layer docker images without needing a docker agent, capabilities, chroot, etc: https://github.com/andrewbaxter/dinker

Caveat: it doesn't work on Fly.io. They seem to be having some issue with OCI manifests: https://github.com/containers/skopeo/issues/1881 . They're also having issues with new docker versions pushing from CI: https://community.fly.io/t/deploying-to-fly-via-github-actio... ... the timing of this post seems weird.

FWIW the article says

> create a Docker image, also known as an OCI image

I don't think this is quite right. From my investigation, Docker and OCI images are basically content addressed trees, starting with a root manifest that points to other files and their hashes (root -> images -> layers -> layer configs + files). The OCI manifests and configs are separate to Docker manifests and configs and basically Docker will support both side by side.