I am skeptical about this tool because I feel like the learning surface underneath will actually be massive, but massive in the wrong direction toward someone's idiosyncratic product.
In order to give me confidence that I won't have to look underneath the surface too much, I'd want to know that the abstraction is very airtight, but all appearances say otherwise. Like another commentator said, I'd rather have an app with well-defined boundaries.
Yep, I don't get this whole trend. Want to start a virtual machine? Use docker-machine. Want to start a bunch of services? Use docker-compose. Want to define the service stack? Use a Dockerfile with the predefined language stacks.
Previously we used to write hundreds of lines of puppet/chef/whatever scripts just to set things up. Its all already boiled down to just a few lines of configuration files. With tools like this or otto, its getting further hidden into nothing, seeming to look almost like magic. I'd rather stick with the few lines that I can control.
Yes, nanobox will try to auto-configure your environment for you. If you would rather define your environment or if nanobox can't auto-configure your environment, you can either:
In order to give me confidence that I won't have to look underneath the surface too much, I'd want to know that the abstraction is very airtight, but all appearances say otherwise. Like another commentator said, I'd rather have an app with well-defined boundaries.