Podman vs docker

../_images/podman-vs-docker.png

Here are the key similarities between Podman and Docker:

1. Command line

  • Both Podman and Docker have similar command-line interfaces, making it easy to switch between the two.

2. Containerization

  • Both Podman and Docker support containerization, allowing for isolated and portable environments.

3. Lightweight Packages

  • Both can run containers with lightweight packages (e.g., images) that include only the necessary dependencies.

4. Isolation

  • Both ensure isolation between containers, preventing them from interfering with each other or the host system.

5. Portability

  • Both are designed to be portable across different operating systems and architectures.

6. Networking Support

  • Both support networking capabilities for containers, including IP address allocation and port mapping.

7. Security Features

  • Both provide security features such as seccomp (sandboxing) and apparmor (access control), to restrict container behavior.

8. Volume Mounting

  • Both support volume mounting, allowing containers to access host directory structures and files.

9. Resource Management

  • Both can manage container resources, such as CPU and memory allocation, to optimize performance.

10. Integration with Other Tools

  • Both can integrate with other tools and platforms, such as orchestration systems (e.g., Kubernetes) and CI/CD pipelines.

11. Active Community

  • Both have active communities and ongoing development, ensuring that new features and bug fixes are regularly added.

Some of the key similarities highlight that both Podman and Docker share many common goals and features in their design, but with differences in implementation and approach.

Here are the key differences between Podman and Docker:

1. Origin

  • Docker: Developed by Docker, Inc. (now part of VMware)

  • Podman: Developed by Red Hat, originally called “runc” (a container runtime), later rebranded as Podman in 2017

2. Purpose

  • Docker: Primarily designed for containerization and orchestration

  • Podman: Designed to provide a lightweight alternative to Docker, with a focus on simplicity and performance

3. Architecture

  • Docker: Uses the Docker Engine ( daemon) to manage containers

  • Podman: Uses the runc container runtime as its core architecture, which is a more lightweight and efficient alternative to Docker’s engine

4. Networking

  • Docker: Has built-in networking capabilities through the Docker bridge network

  • Podman: Supports both IPv4 and IPv6 networking, but requires additional configuration for complex networks

5. Security

  • Docker: Has robust security features like seccomp and apparmor

  • Podman: Also supports seccomp and apparmor, but with some differences in implementation

6. Performance

  • Docker: Can be slower due to its engine’s complexity

  • Podman: Generally faster and more lightweight than Docker, thanks to the runc container runtime

7. Orchestration

  • Docker: Supports native integration with Kubernetes (using Docker Swarm)

  • Podman: Does not have native support for Kubernetes, but can be used with other orchestration tools like kubernetes-podman

8. Community Support

  • Docker: Has a large and established community, with many plugins and integrations available

  • Podman: Smaller but still active community, with growing support from Red Hat and other contributors

In summary, while both Docker and Podman are containerization platforms, they have different design goals, architectures, and use cases. Podman is designed to be a more lightweight and efficient alternative to Docker, with a focus on simplicity and performance.

All of the exercises in this workshop work for both docker as for podman. So you can choose which one you want to use. See the getting started section for more information on how to install them.