For all the alleged advantages in terms of environment "stability", it turns out that upgrading your stack can actually introduce quite a bit of instability and unpredictability, often to the extent of canceling out the benefits. But what many developers discover with Bitnami and containers is upgrading your stack can be rather janky. For some users this "bloat" is justifiable, and preferable (for example, very large companies who require across-the-board uniformity). At the end of the day, Bitnami (and other containers, like Docker) are adding another "layer" to your stack, and thus, more bloat. To put it simply, logging into shell on a server where Bitnami is installed is not in fact logging into the actual shell :) when trying to analyze or replicate your stack, etc. However as mentioned, this can quickly become frustrating when you are trying to use "standard" Bash shell commands or even the MySQL CLI, e.g. The entire point of using a containerized approach is to have more control of the stack environment, which can improve compatibility, predictability, security, and otherwise. This could be seen as either an advantage or a disadvantage, depending on your perspective (and situation). Even after you figure those out, most of the online tutorials and documentations you might find will not apply to your stack. So, many developers who are used to customizing their stack using nano or vim editors (via the Bash shell) quickly discover that you first have to figure out where all the different configuration files of your stack modules reside, etc.
Because Bitnami is a container approach to web stacks, it installs everything in Ubuntu (or whatever Linux distro) under the /opt/bitnami directory. There are 3 common drawbacks to Bitnami vs.
0 kommentar(er)
