1

My company is RHEL customer, and I need base container images for:

  1. Portable CI/CD build environments
  2. Running services with minimal dependencies (Go, Java, Python)

Looking at these 2 docker files, they are identical. Is there any difference in support model, or maintenance?

https://catalog.redhat.com/software/containers/ubi7/ubi-minimal/5c3594f7dd19c775cddfa777?gti-tabs=unauthenticated&container-tabs=dockerfile

https://catalog.redhat.com/software/containers/rhel7/rhel-atomic/58b9d66f4b339a07cca5359e?container-tabs=dockerfile

ddimitrov
  • 3,293
  • 3
  • 31
  • 46
  • Looking at this diff -> https://www.diffchecker.com/uz6B8dEv - I can see the only differences are in labeling, the commands are exactly the same. Label is something like a comment, it shouldn't have any effect on the actual image (maybe apart from licence specification), both of the Docker files use the same image source, both of them have the same commands in the same exact order, so I'd say they're both identical. I guess the difference may be in customer support rather than architectural difference. Can you provide more informations? While keeping bussiness secrets safe, of course? – Polda18 Feb 21 '21 at 18:13

1 Answers1

3

By the docs of RHEL

The legacy rhel7-minimal (or rhel7-atomic) and UBI ubi7-minimal images are stripped-down RHEL images to use when a bare-bones base image in desired. RHEL minimal images provide a base for your own container images that is less than half the size of the standard image, while still being able to draw on RHEL software repositories and maintain any compliance requirements your software has.

BOTH

  • Includes Microdnf.
  • Not YUM.

ATOMIC

UBI-MINIMAL

I personally would choose UBI-Minimal, but, think you should also take a look at the UBI FAQ to know the details, pros and cons of each image depending on your business - https://developers.redhat.com/articles/ubi-faq#ubi_details

EdwardLi
  • 186
  • 1
  • 12