Add integration for one or many external Docker hosts (different docker-machine providers)

[develar]

I cannot use VirtualBox because I don't have enough memory for it — Parallels Desktop is much better and I have configured vagrant box. https://github.com/Parallels/vagrant-parallels/issues/115

So — I just want to open Kinematic and Kinematic should not install VirtualBox/boot2docker — use existing installation (DOCKER_HOST env).

[FrenchBen]

@bt there's a bit of info in the wiki under machine management. A lot of the code needs to be updated, but it'll give you an idea of general direction

[gsingla294]

I don't want to use Virtual box. Instead, I have my docker daemon installed on one of the VMs in Data center. can I connect that daemon using Kitematic using IP of the VM? so that I can manage my docker deamon using Kitematic UI.

[mrkeuz]

:+1:

[kastork]

+1

For me it would be enough to simply have the ability to tell Kitematic which docker-machine of mine to use. The local stuff on a VM is nice, but I use docker-machine to create multiple environments on multiple clouds as well as locally. I don't need or even, necessarily, want Kitematic to manage the construction of machines locally or remotely (docker-machine command line is perfectly adequate for that), I just want to use it to manage containers in whatever machine I need to work with since it has a nice interface for environments, ports and so forth.

[kane-c]

I figured out a basic workaround to use this without VirtualBox if anyone is interested. https://github.com/kane-c/kitemagic

I'm using it now with Parallels and Dinghy.

[FrenchBen]

@kane-c I appreciate the quick hack, but it would be much nicer to have a proper solution implemented. Do you think you could create a PR that does something similar?

[luckydonald]

For reverence, @kane-c's script is currently 59eae3

[yuba]

+1

[chrisandchris]

+1 for adding other machine vm providers

[stormbeta]

This makes it pretty difficult to recommend Kitematic right now. Putting support for creating machines with other drivers on the back-burner makes sense, but the inability to even select an pre-existing machine config, especially when Kitematic already uses docker-machine, is frustrating.

Almost every other tool related to docker I've seen allows you to define the docker config yourself, or pick from a list of visible docker-machines.

[jdickey]

@stormbeta The only logical conclusion seems to be that Kitematic is being deprecated with plausible deniability; after all, it still works if you saddle yourself with VirtualBox, but it won't work even with Docker's bundled hypervisor (xhyve). As you note, it's now simply unethical to recommend anyone even try Kitematic, and that stance is likely to spread to Docker tools as a whole without expedited vendor action.

Translation: Docker, if you're trying to encourage people to sign up for paid support/etc contracts, you're proceeding along a highly implausible path.

[hellonearthis]

I would like to see and will try and see if the config and other settings can be exposed in Kitematic as it is a very useful feature. It is open source so you can do it yourself and if you don't like kitematic then just use the Docker.exe

[luckydonald]

As the problem is not that it doesn't work with other machines.

Like @kane-c's comment shows, it is possible with non virtual box VM's.

[ssbarnea]

Does anyone knows another client for macos that can be used to manage multime docker hosts?

[luckydonald]

Portainer might be suited. I also heard about the rancher frontend being able to connect to multiple machines