docs: link to a container security article #272
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Contributor
|
how is this an alternative? |
Contributor
Author
|
The linked issue asks about recommending Podman as a more secure alternative to Docker, and this guide recommends using Podman over Docker along with more comprehensive container security advice |
Contributor
|
The point was just to recommend podman since it's already installed and in the Fedora repos. docker can run rootless too. |
Contributor
Author
|
gVisor can also be way to increase container security (even if it is a bit less convenient compared to podman), and linking this guide would lead to mentioning podman, docker, and gvisor |
Contributor
|
@Ganwtrs right but the issue in question isn't related to security. It's just about adding a few words to an existing faq item 😄 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
An alternative solution to #193