Add integration for one or many external Docker hosts (different docker-machine providers) #231

Open
develar opened this Issue Mar 12, 2015 · 113 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
@develar

develar commented Mar 12, 2015

I cannot use VirtualBox because I don't have enough memory for it — Parallels Desktop is much better and I have configured vagrant box. Parallels/vagrant-parallels#115

So — I just want to open Kinematic and Kinematic should not install VirtualBox/boot2docker — use existing installation (DOCKER_HOST env).

@develar develar changed the title from Don't install VirtualBox by default — use existing installation to Don't install VirtualBox by default — use existing installation of Docker Mar 12, 2015

@ryansch

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ryansch

ryansch Mar 12, 2015

I'd be interested in this to enable our use of vmware fusion.

ryansch commented Mar 12, 2015

I'd be interested in this to enable our use of vmware fusion.

@proudlygeek

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@proudlygeek

proudlygeek Mar 12, 2015

👍 I really dig this one!

👍 I really dig this one!

@develar

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@develar

develar Mar 12, 2015

@ryansch Exactly. Regardless of performance (Vmware is closer, http://www.tekrevue.com/parallels-10-fusion-7-virtualbox-benchmark/), vagrant allows to customize VM more precisely (for example, by default, VirtualBox consumes more than 1GB RAM — vagrant parallels box just restricted to 512 MB and it is enough).

develar commented Mar 12, 2015

@ryansch Exactly. Regardless of performance (Vmware is closer, http://www.tekrevue.com/parallels-10-fusion-7-virtualbox-benchmark/), vagrant allows to customize VM more precisely (for example, by default, VirtualBox consumes more than 1GB RAM — vagrant parallels box just restricted to 512 MB and it is enough).

@hadronzoo

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment

👍

@caseywebdev

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment

👍

@tgoeke

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tgoeke

tgoeke Mar 12, 2015

I would vote for supporting VMware Fusion with docker machine.

tgoeke commented Mar 12, 2015

I would vote for supporting VMware Fusion with docker machine.

@mainiak

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment

mainiak commented Mar 12, 2015

👍

@dougborg

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dougborg

dougborg Mar 12, 2015

+1 for the ability to specify a driver for docker-machine!

+1 for the ability to specify a driver for docker-machine!

@dougborg

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dougborg

dougborg Mar 12, 2015

Looks like you can work around this for now by using docker-machine to create and configure a box with whatever driver you like. Just call it dev and it looks like Kitematic will just use that one.

After installing kitematic and starting it up for the first time:

# Kitematic creates a virtualbox vm via docker-machine - this is hard-coded for now.
$ docker-machine ls
NAME           ACTIVE   DRIVER         STATE     URL                          SWARM
dev            *        virtualbox     Running   tcp://192.168.99.100:2376

# close kitematic

# remove the default vm
$ docker-machine rm dev
$ docker-machine ls
NAME           ACTIVE   DRIVER         STATE     URL                          SWARM

# create a new `dev` machine with whatever driver you like:
$ docker-machine create dev -d vmwarefusion
INFO[0000] Creating SSH key...
INFO[0000] Creating VM...
INFO[0000] Starting dev...
INFO[0000] Waiting for VM to come online...
INFO[0042] "dev" has been created and is now the active machine.
INFO[0042] To point your Docker client at it, run this in your shell: $(docker-machine env dev)
$ docker-machine ls
NAME   ACTIVE   DRIVER         STATE     URL                          SWARM
dev    *        vmwarefusion   Running   tcp://192.168.133.132:2376

# start Kitematic - it will say it is "Starting Docker VM",
# but it is really just using the one you created:

$ docker-machine ls
NAME   ACTIVE   DRIVER         STATE     URL                          SWARM
dev    *        vmwarefusion   Running   tcp://192.168.133.132:2376 

You can now start containers, etc using the Kitematic UI and they will use the dev vm you created manually.

So far the only thing I have found that doesn't work is using the Kismatic UI to browse/edit files you have mounted as volumes in the container. They must be setting that up using a mount from the virtualbox vm created with vbox commands, or something along those lines. That is one limitation for the work-around and something else that will have to be implemented for each driver or in a more generic way.

Looks like you can work around this for now by using docker-machine to create and configure a box with whatever driver you like. Just call it dev and it looks like Kitematic will just use that one.

After installing kitematic and starting it up for the first time:

# Kitematic creates a virtualbox vm via docker-machine - this is hard-coded for now.
$ docker-machine ls
NAME           ACTIVE   DRIVER         STATE     URL                          SWARM
dev            *        virtualbox     Running   tcp://192.168.99.100:2376

# close kitematic

# remove the default vm
$ docker-machine rm dev
$ docker-machine ls
NAME           ACTIVE   DRIVER         STATE     URL                          SWARM

# create a new `dev` machine with whatever driver you like:
$ docker-machine create dev -d vmwarefusion
INFO[0000] Creating SSH key...
INFO[0000] Creating VM...
INFO[0000] Starting dev...
INFO[0000] Waiting for VM to come online...
INFO[0042] "dev" has been created and is now the active machine.
INFO[0042] To point your Docker client at it, run this in your shell: $(docker-machine env dev)
$ docker-machine ls
NAME   ACTIVE   DRIVER         STATE     URL                          SWARM
dev    *        vmwarefusion   Running   tcp://192.168.133.132:2376

# start Kitematic - it will say it is "Starting Docker VM",
# but it is really just using the one you created:

$ docker-machine ls
NAME   ACTIVE   DRIVER         STATE     URL                          SWARM
dev    *        vmwarefusion   Running   tcp://192.168.133.132:2376 

You can now start containers, etc using the Kitematic UI and they will use the dev vm you created manually.

So far the only thing I have found that doesn't work is using the Kismatic UI to browse/edit files you have mounted as volumes in the container. They must be setting that up using a mount from the virtualbox vm created with vbox commands, or something along those lines. That is one limitation for the work-around and something else that will have to be implemented for each driver or in a more generic way.

@tgoeke

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tgoeke

tgoeke Mar 12, 2015

Using the manual method is fine - except I don't want to install VirtualBox at all, it messes with networks etc, so it would be nice to be able to skip the VB install.

tgoeke commented Mar 12, 2015

Using the manual method is fine - except I don't want to install VirtualBox at all, it messes with networks etc, so it would be nice to be able to skip the VB install.

@dougborg

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dougborg

dougborg Mar 12, 2015

Yep. Good point. I tried uninstalling VirtualBox, but Kitematic installed it again the next time it started up.

Yep. Good point. I tried uninstalling VirtualBox, but Kitematic installed it again the next time it started up.

@sammcj

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sammcj

sammcj Mar 12, 2015

Just went to try it and saw it started downloading Virtualbox without even prompting - had to quickly kill it off.

I already have boot2docker and docker machine setup with VMware Fusion which is a lot faster and more reliable than Virtualbox - it would be nice if Kitematic recognised this.

sammcj commented Mar 12, 2015

Just went to try it and saw it started downloading Virtualbox without even prompting - had to quickly kill it off.

I already have boot2docker and docker machine setup with VMware Fusion which is a lot faster and more reliable than Virtualbox - it would be nice if Kitematic recognised this.

@jmorganca jmorganca added the feature label Mar 13, 2015

@jmorganca jmorganca changed the title from Don't install VirtualBox by default — use existing installation of Docker to Add integration for different docker-machine providers Mar 13, 2015

@jmorganca

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jmorganca

jmorganca Mar 13, 2015

Member

Hi all. Thanks for creating this issue!

The good news is that we use docker-machine under the hood, which is quickly adding support for different providers such as VMware fusion etc.

I'll mark this as a feature for adding different providers, but also understanding that it's inconvenient to automatically install VirtualBox if that's not what's expected.

Member

jmorganca commented Mar 13, 2015

Hi all. Thanks for creating this issue!

The good news is that we use docker-machine under the hood, which is quickly adding support for different providers such as VMware fusion etc.

I'll mark this as a feature for adding different providers, but also understanding that it's inconvenient to automatically install VirtualBox if that's not what's expected.

@jmorganca jmorganca changed the title from Add integration for different docker-machine providers to Add integration for other Docker hosts (different docker-machine providers) Mar 14, 2015

@jmorganca jmorganca changed the title from Add integration for other Docker hosts (different docker-machine providers) to Add integration for external Docker hosts (different docker-machine providers) Mar 14, 2015

@dougborg

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dougborg

dougborg Mar 17, 2015

Just to follow up on my earlier comment, it looks like the host volume support is provided by docker machine host drivers and host volume mounting is not yet supported by the vmwarefusion driver: docker/machine#641.

Just to follow up on my earlier comment, it looks like the host volume support is provided by docker machine host drivers and host volume mounting is not yet supported by the vmwarefusion driver: docker/machine#641.

@rickard-von-essen

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@rickard-von-essen

rickard-von-essen Mar 17, 2015

@dougborg Is host volume mounting required to get kitematic to work? I wrote the Parallels Desktop driver and is eager to add support for it in kitematic but it currently lacks host volume mounting because of legal issues with the drivers.

Is there any work done on abstracting out the "driver" layer?

@dougborg Is host volume mounting required to get kitematic to work? I wrote the Parallels Desktop driver and is eager to add support for it in kitematic but it currently lacks host volume mounting because of legal issues with the drivers.

Is there any work done on abstracting out the "driver" layer?

@develar

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@develar

develar Mar 17, 2015

@rickard-von-essen I don't get your note about parallels. Host volumes works perfectly – specified in my vagrant file (config.vm.synced_folder "/Users/develar", "/Users/develar").

develar commented Mar 17, 2015

@rickard-von-essen I don't get your note about parallels. Host volumes works perfectly – specified in my vagrant file (config.vm.synced_folder "/Users/develar", "/Users/develar").

@rickard-von-essen

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@rickard-von-essen

rickard-von-essen Mar 17, 2015

@develar But not in docker-machine + boot2docker.iso since it requires that boot2docker.iso to include Parallels Tools which is currently not supported by the EULA see 1.7. Parallels Tool on http://www.parallels.com/about/legal/eula/ .

@develar But not in docker-machine + boot2docker.iso since it requires that boot2docker.iso to include Parallels Tools which is currently not supported by the EULA see 1.7. Parallels Tool on http://www.parallels.com/about/legal/eula/ .

@jmorganca jmorganca changed the title from Add integration for external Docker hosts (different docker-machine providers) to Add integration for one or many external Docker hosts (different docker-machine providers) Mar 18, 2015

@dougborg

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dougborg

dougborg Mar 18, 2015

@rickard-von-essen: I think host volume support is important in the context of this user story / feature: adding support for other docker-machine providers. While I am sure there are some situations where mounting volumes from the OSX host is not needed, I find it is necessary in most of the work I do with Docker. Kitematic already has a nice interface built up around mounting and viewing contents of host volumes and I think it would be a shame for those features to be unavailable if you use another provider. If you provide support for other providers without the host volume mounting feature, I suspect it would confuse users.

@rickard-von-essen: I think host volume support is important in the context of this user story / feature: adding support for other docker-machine providers. While I am sure there are some situations where mounting volumes from the OSX host is not needed, I find it is necessary in most of the work I do with Docker. Kitematic already has a nice interface built up around mounting and viewing contents of host volumes and I think it would be a shame for those features to be unavailable if you use another provider. If you provide support for other providers without the host volume mounting feature, I suspect it would confuse users.

@jamroks

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jamroks

jamroks Mar 30, 2015

   + 1 on this one !!!  On Mac Os x nothing compare to vmware Fusion when using virtualization : 
  • Speed
  • Relability
  • Rock Solid Feature
  • etc

It used to be only Virtual Box around me, But nowadays i see a lot of people now swithing to Fusion for all the reason mention above . It's a growing user base of Fusion on Mac OS happening . And Yes please Host Volume support is a must for any productive workflow between Host-VM-Docker

jamroks commented Mar 30, 2015

   + 1 on this one !!!  On Mac Os x nothing compare to vmware Fusion when using virtualization : 
  • Speed
  • Relability
  • Rock Solid Feature
  • etc

It used to be only Virtual Box around me, But nowadays i see a lot of people now swithing to Fusion for all the reason mention above . It's a growing user base of Fusion on Mac OS happening . And Yes please Host Volume support is a must for any productive workflow between Host-VM-Docker

@ghost

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ghost

ghost Apr 21, 2015

Please add this!

ghost commented Apr 21, 2015

Please add this!

@jchannon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jchannon

jchannon Apr 21, 2015

I just came across KiteMatic and thought this looks cool!

But then I saw it used VirtualBox

Please add the ability to use VMFusion!

Thank you

I just came across KiteMatic and thought this looks cool!

But then I saw it used VirtualBox

Please add the ability to use VMFusion!

Thank you

@jmorganca

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jmorganca

jmorganca Apr 21, 2015

Member

@jchannon Hah! Loved this comment. Thanks for the feedback 😃

Member

jmorganca commented Apr 21, 2015

@jchannon Hah! Loved this comment. Thanks for the feedback 😃

@philjones88

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@philjones88

philjones88 Apr 21, 2015

👍 Fusion user here

👍 Fusion user here

@develar

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@develar

develar Apr 21, 2015

See details here — docker/machine#939 (comment) "Parallels are working on Parallel Tools for boot2docker."

develar commented Apr 21, 2015

See details here — docker/machine#939 (comment) "Parallels are working on Parallel Tools for boot2docker."

@jchannon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jchannon

jchannon Apr 21, 2015

@jeffdm how goes the progress for this feature?

@jeffdm how goes the progress for this feature?

@jmorganca

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jmorganca

jmorganca Apr 21, 2015

Member

@jchannon Right now we're working to nail the (default) virtualbox experience but this is strongly in demand.

That said, this is strongly in demand. Both so KM users can deploy an app to a cloud server or use alternative Desktop virtualization system.

Member

jmorganca commented Apr 21, 2015

@jchannon Right now we're working to nail the (default) virtualbox experience but this is strongly in demand.

That said, this is strongly in demand. Both so KM users can deploy an app to a cloud server or use alternative Desktop virtualization system.

@MattRogish

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MattRogish

MattRogish Apr 23, 2015

👍 Also want VMWare Fusion support. :D Thanks!!

👍 Also want VMWare Fusion support. :D Thanks!!

@andrerom

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@andrerom

andrerom Apr 29, 2015

Fusion supported wanted 👍 (will try the manual way in between, but I also have limited space on my macbook, so this would be great to be able to uninstall virtualbox)

Fusion supported wanted 👍 (will try the manual way in between, but I also have limited space on my macbook, so this would be great to be able to uninstall virtualbox)

@taiidani

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@taiidani

taiidani Apr 30, 2015

Definitely a 👍 here too. I support the developer machines at my workplace and we use a mix of Vagrant+VMWare and Vagrant+Virtualbox. It would be great if Virtualbox wasn't a requirement.

Definitely a 👍 here too. I support the developer machines at my workplace and we use a mix of Vagrant+VMWare and Vagrant+Virtualbox. It would be great if Virtualbox wasn't a requirement.

@stunthamster

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@stunthamster

stunthamster May 8, 2015

Another thumbs up from me on this feature - would be awesome to be able to use VMware Fusion on my Macbook.

Another thumbs up from me on this feature - would be awesome to be able to use VMware Fusion on my Macbook.

@FrenchBen

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@FrenchBen

FrenchBen Nov 9, 2015

Contributor

@ianbytchek What version of Node/NPM are you using? v4.2.1 is what I'm using

Contributor

FrenchBen commented Nov 9, 2015

@ianbytchek What version of Node/NPM are you using? v4.2.1 is what I'm using

@ianbytchek

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ianbytchek

ianbytchek Nov 9, 2015

@FrenchBen 5.0.0 & 3.3.10. This must be related to brianmcd/contextify#188 or one of similar issues.

@FrenchBen 5.0.0 & 3.3.10. This must be related to brianmcd/contextify#188 or one of similar issues.

@FrenchBen

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@FrenchBen

FrenchBen Nov 9, 2015

Contributor

@ianbytchek very possible. May have to wait for this to be merged.

Contributor

FrenchBen commented Nov 9, 2015

@ianbytchek very possible. May have to wait for this to be merged.

@tiborvass

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tiborvass

tiborvass Nov 15, 2015

Ping @FrenhBen a LOT of people are asking for this feature at dockercon eu ! I think it shouldn't be too difficult to integrate it with machine. 👍

Ping @FrenhBen a LOT of people are asking for this feature at dockercon eu ! I think it shouldn't be too difficult to integrate it with machine. 👍

@FrenchBen

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@FrenchBen

FrenchBen Nov 18, 2015

Contributor

@tiborvass Needs a little extra QA and we'll be ready for it 💃

Contributor

FrenchBen commented Nov 18, 2015

@tiborvass Needs a little extra QA and we'll be ready for it 💃

@badlydrawnrob

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@badlydrawnrob

badlydrawnrob Nov 18, 2015

👍 For an alternative vmware fusion integration. Currently using Vagrant with Deploybot integration ... so if I can figure out their Atomic deployment with Docker integration, that might lead to a hassle-free process. Anything to save me manually setting up servers!

👍 For an alternative vmware fusion integration. Currently using Vagrant with Deploybot integration ... so if I can figure out their Atomic deployment with Docker integration, that might lead to a hassle-free process. Anything to save me manually setting up servers!

@felixphew

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@felixphew

felixphew Dec 4, 2015

@FrenchBen sorry to keep hassling you, but when is this patch likely to make it into a release? If you need any extra testing done, I'm happy to help out.

@FrenchBen sorry to keep hassling you, but when is this patch likely to make it into a release? If you need any extra testing done, I'm happy to help out.

@FrenchBen

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@FrenchBen

FrenchBen Dec 5, 2015

Contributor

@felixphew no problem - Monitoring it myself. I'll update this thread when it does!

Contributor

FrenchBen commented Dec 5, 2015

@felixphew no problem - Monitoring it myself. I'll update this thread when it does!

@felixphew

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@luckydonald

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@luckydonald

luckydonald Dec 23, 2015

I can't use my created machine. Also, the delete vm button does nothing.
image

/Applications/Docker/Kitematic (Beta).app/Contents/Resources/resources/docker-machine -D create -d virtualbox --virtualbox-memory 2048 default returned non zero exit code. Stderr: Error creating machine: Machine default already exists You will want to check the provider to make sure the machine and associated resources were properly removed

$ docker-machine ls
NAME      ACTIVE   DRIVER      STATE     URL                      SWARM   DOCKER   ERRORS
default   *        parallels   Running   tcp://10.211.55.8:2376           v1.8.3

Mac OS 10.9.5, Parallels 10.3.0 (29227)

I can't use my created machine. Also, the delete vm button does nothing.
image

/Applications/Docker/Kitematic (Beta).app/Contents/Resources/resources/docker-machine -D create -d virtualbox --virtualbox-memory 2048 default returned non zero exit code. Stderr: Error creating machine: Machine default already exists You will want to check the provider to make sure the machine and associated resources were properly removed

$ docker-machine ls
NAME      ACTIVE   DRIVER      STATE     URL                      SWARM   DOCKER   ERRORS
default   *        parallels   Running   tcp://10.211.55.8:2376           v1.8.3

Mac OS 10.9.5, Parallels 10.3.0 (29227)

@ianbytchek

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ianbytchek

ianbytchek Dec 23, 2015

Yep, same thing with Parallels. Thought that was supposed to be working in the latest release?

Yep, same thing with Parallels. Thought that was supposed to be working in the latest release?

@FrenchBen

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@FrenchBen

FrenchBen Dec 23, 2015

Contributor

Unfortunately it isn't - There was some early work done to support those, but the 'default' VM still is expected to be a Virtualbox driver and why you're seeing the error.

Contributor

FrenchBen commented Dec 23, 2015

Unfortunately it isn't - There was some early work done to support those, but the 'default' VM still is expected to be a Virtualbox driver and why you're seeing the error.

@ianbytchek

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jdickey

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jdickey

jdickey Dec 24, 2015

Agreed with @ianbytchek. My boss hears me raving about Docker, but absent Kitematic working with our existing VMware installation (that we're otherwise committed to), there are still too many shiny knobs and sharp edges for me to be comfortable having him set anything up by himself. Ditto for any future new hires. 😞

jdickey commented Dec 24, 2015

Agreed with @ianbytchek. My boss hears me raving about Docker, but absent Kitematic working with our existing VMware installation (that we're otherwise committed to), there are still too many shiny knobs and sharp edges for me to be comfortable having him set anything up by himself. Ditto for any future new hires. 😞

@luckydonald

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@luckydonald

luckydonald Dec 24, 2015

Is there a particular reason for that check of the driver?

Is there a particular reason for that check of the driver?

@FrenchBen

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@FrenchBen

FrenchBen Dec 28, 2015

Contributor

@jdickey Sorry to hear this being a pain point. It's not easy to please all 'setup', but feel free to comment in the wiki on the machine work.
@luckydonald We rely on vbox for a proper VM setup and have it integrated for retries, reset, etc. Allowing more drivers becomes a pretty big task during the initial setup.

Contributor

FrenchBen commented Dec 28, 2015

@jdickey Sorry to hear this being a pain point. It's not easy to please all 'setup', but feel free to comment in the wiki on the machine work.
@luckydonald We rely on vbox for a proper VM setup and have it integrated for retries, reset, etc. Allowing more drivers becomes a pretty big task during the initial setup.

@luckydonald

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@luckydonald

luckydonald Dec 28, 2015

Heh. Even VMware doesn't really works, I got problems on my windows machine all the time, something like 'could not get ip'. But that probably is another issue.

Heh. Even VMware doesn't really works, I got problems on my windows machine all the time, something like 'could not get ip'. But that probably is another issue.

@jameswilson

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jameswilson

jameswilson Jan 22, 2016

Also interested in this. I tried installing Toolkit, run Kitematic for first time, it creates the VirtualBox default VM. Then tried removing the default with docker-machine rm default, and replacing it with one using the Parallels driver with docker-machine create --driver=parallels default. When I go to restart Kitematic, it completely replaces my Parallels VM with a new VirtualBox one!

Also interested in this. I tried installing Toolkit, run Kitematic for first time, it creates the VirtualBox default VM. Then tried removing the default with docker-machine rm default, and replacing it with one using the Parallels driver with docker-machine create --driver=parallels default. When I go to restart Kitematic, it completely replaces my Parallels VM with a new VirtualBox one!

@unlucio

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@unlucio

unlucio Jan 24, 2016

👍
I use as well simply my general linux vm on vmware (so no vbox nor docker-machine) and I'd love to be able to have kitematic attching to that :)

unlucio commented Jan 24, 2016

👍
I use as well simply my general linux vm on vmware (so no vbox nor docker-machine) and I'd love to be able to have kitematic attching to that :)

@joshuajeeson

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@joshuajeeson

joshuajeeson Jan 27, 2016

+1 to be able to remotely control a docker engine installed on VM's, with Kinematic installed locally on my desktop machine.

+1 to be able to remotely control a docker engine installed on VM's, with Kinematic installed locally on my desktop machine.

@bt

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bt

bt Feb 5, 2016

Is there any update or roadmap for this issue?

Maybe some of us can contribute to the efforts as well?

bt commented Feb 5, 2016

Is there any update or roadmap for this issue?

Maybe some of us can contribute to the efforts as well?

@FrenchBen

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@FrenchBen

FrenchBen Feb 5, 2016

Contributor

@bt there's a bit of info in the wiki under machine management. A lot of the code needs to be updated, but it'll give you an idea of general direction

Contributor

FrenchBen commented Feb 5, 2016

@bt there's a bit of info in the wiki under machine management. A lot of the code needs to be updated, but it'll give you an idea of general direction

@gsingla294

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gsingla294

gsingla294 Feb 23, 2016

I don't want to use Virtual box. Instead, I have my docker daemon installed on one of the VMs in Data center.
can I connect that daemon using Kitematic using IP of the VM? so that I can manage my docker deamon using Kitematic UI.

I don't want to use Virtual box. Instead, I have my docker daemon installed on one of the VMs in Data center.
can I connect that daemon using Kitematic using IP of the VM? so that I can manage my docker deamon using Kitematic UI.

@mathewpeterson mathewpeterson referenced this issue in Homebrew/homebrew-cask Mar 1, 2016

Closed

Feature request: XOR with depends_on #19369

@mrkeuz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment

mrkeuz commented Mar 3, 2016

👍

@kastork

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kastork

kastork Apr 25, 2016

+1

For me it would be enough to simply have the ability to tell Kitematic which docker-machine of mine to use. The local stuff on a VM is nice, but I use docker-machine to create multiple environments on multiple clouds as well as locally. I don't need or even, necessarily, want Kitematic to manage the construction of machines locally or remotely (docker-machine command line is perfectly adequate for that), I just want to use it to manage containers in whatever machine I need to work with since it has a nice interface for environments, ports and so forth.

kastork commented Apr 25, 2016

+1

For me it would be enough to simply have the ability to tell Kitematic which docker-machine of mine to use. The local stuff on a VM is nice, but I use docker-machine to create multiple environments on multiple clouds as well as locally. I don't need or even, necessarily, want Kitematic to manage the construction of machines locally or remotely (docker-machine command line is perfectly adequate for that), I just want to use it to manage containers in whatever machine I need to work with since it has a nice interface for environments, ports and so forth.

@kane-c

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kane-c

kane-c Aug 15, 2016

I figured out a basic workaround to use this without VirtualBox if anyone is interested.
https://github.com/kane-c/kitemagic

I'm using it now with Parallels and Dinghy.

kane-c commented Aug 15, 2016

I figured out a basic workaround to use this without VirtualBox if anyone is interested.
https://github.com/kane-c/kitemagic

I'm using it now with Parallels and Dinghy.

@FrenchBen

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@FrenchBen

FrenchBen Aug 22, 2016

Contributor

@kane-c I appreciate the quick hack, but it would be much nicer to have a proper solution implemented. Do you think you could create a PR that does something similar?

Contributor

FrenchBen commented Aug 22, 2016

@kane-c I appreciate the quick hack, but it would be much nicer to have a proper solution implemented. Do you think you could create a PR that does something similar?

@luckydonald

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@luckydonald

luckydonald Aug 23, 2016

For reverence, @kane-c's script is currently 59eae3

For reverence, @kane-c's script is currently 59eae3

@yuba

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment

yuba commented Oct 19, 2016

+1

@chrisandchris

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@chrisandchris

chrisandchris May 26, 2017

+1 for adding other machine vm providers

+1 for adding other machine vm providers

@stormbeta

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@stormbeta

stormbeta Jun 12, 2017

This makes it pretty difficult to recommend Kitematic right now. Putting support for creating machines with other drivers on the back-burner makes sense, but the inability to even select an pre-existing machine config, especially when Kitematic already uses docker-machine, is frustrating.

Almost every other tool related to docker I've seen allows you to define the docker config yourself, or pick from a list of visible docker-machines.

stormbeta commented Jun 12, 2017

This makes it pretty difficult to recommend Kitematic right now. Putting support for creating machines with other drivers on the back-burner makes sense, but the inability to even select an pre-existing machine config, especially when Kitematic already uses docker-machine, is frustrating.

Almost every other tool related to docker I've seen allows you to define the docker config yourself, or pick from a list of visible docker-machines.

@jdickey

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jdickey

jdickey Jun 16, 2017

@stormbeta The only logical conclusion seems to be that Kitematic is being deprecated with plausible deniability; after all, it still works if you saddle yourself with VirtualBox, but it won't work even with Docker's bundled hypervisor (xhyve). As you note, it's now simply unethical to recommend anyone even try Kitematic, and that stance is likely to spread to Docker tools as a whole without expedited vendor action.

Translation: Docker, if you're trying to encourage people to sign up for paid support/etc contracts, you're proceeding along a highly implausible path.

jdickey commented Jun 16, 2017

@stormbeta The only logical conclusion seems to be that Kitematic is being deprecated with plausible deniability; after all, it still works if you saddle yourself with VirtualBox, but it won't work even with Docker's bundled hypervisor (xhyve). As you note, it's now simply unethical to recommend anyone even try Kitematic, and that stance is likely to spread to Docker tools as a whole without expedited vendor action.

Translation: Docker, if you're trying to encourage people to sign up for paid support/etc contracts, you're proceeding along a highly implausible path.

@hellonearthis

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@hellonearthis

hellonearthis Jun 16, 2017

I would like to see and will try and see if the config and other settings can be exposed in Kitematic as it is a very useful feature. It is open source so you can do it yourself and if you don't like kitematic then just use the Docker.exe

I would like to see and will try and see if the config and other settings can be exposed in Kitematic as it is a very useful feature. It is open source so you can do it yourself and if you don't like kitematic then just use the Docker.exe

@luckydonald

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@luckydonald

luckydonald Jun 20, 2017

As the problem is not that it doesn't work with other machines.

Like @kane-c's comment shows, it is possible with non virtual box VM's.

luckydonald commented Jun 20, 2017

As the problem is not that it doesn't work with other machines.

Like @kane-c's comment shows, it is possible with non virtual box VM's.

@kane-c kane-c referenced this issue in codekitchen/dinghy Jun 26, 2017

Closed

Kitematic for the FAQ #242

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment