How does it differ from existing tools kinda do exactly same, like e.g. toolbx. (And to a slightly lesser degree flatpack, snap, etc.)?
And what prevented adopting/supporting existing projects, instead of further tool ecosystem fragmentation? (kinda the same question, just differently phrased)
Ha! I wrote the first commit to CoreOS's toolbox in 2014: <a href="https://github.com/coreos/toolbox/commit/dc4aa0b14bceafd6afaf144c54cf66156109e220" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/coreos/toolbox/commit/dc4aa0b14bceafd6afa...
And then I read your comment and my first reaction was, oh, they typoed toolbox. But, nope, Red Hat created toolbx which confusingly has the CLI binary of `toolbox`: <a href="https://containertoolbx.org" rel="nofollow">https://containertoolbx.org
... it's not. Just another way to keep my host clean and do the dirty work somewhere else. Where did reproducible builds come through? Another comment?
dathinab · · focus · HN ↗
And what prevented adopting/supporting existing projects, instead of further tool ecosystem fragmentation? (kinda the same question, just differently phrased)
philips · · focus · HN ↗
And then I read your comment and my first reaction was, oh, they typoed toolbox. But, nope, Red Hat created toolbx which confusingly has the CLI binary of `toolbox`: <a href="https://containertoolbx.org" rel="nofollow">https://containertoolbx.org
bketelsen · · focus · HN ↗
philips · · focus · HN ↗
bketelsen · · focus · HN ↗
philips · · focus · HN ↗