Docker vs Podman - Choosing the Right Container Platform for Your Team

The container ecosystem has evolved significantly over the past few years, and teams today have more choices than ever when selecting their container runtime platform. While Docker has long been the de facto standard, Podman has emerged as a compelling alternative that addresses some of Docker's architectural limitations and licensing concerns. This article provides a comprehensive comparison to help you make an informed decision for your team.

Architecture and Container Runtimes

One of the most significant differences between Docker and Podman lies in their fundamental architecture.

Docker Architecture

Docker uses a client-server architecture with a central daemon (dockerd) that runs as a privileged process with root access. All container operations go through this daemon, which manages images, containers, networks, and volumes. While this centralized approach simplifies certain operations, it also introduces a single point of failure and security concerns related to running a privileged daemon.

Docker uses containerd as its container runtime, which in turn uses runc to spawn and run containers according to the OCI (Open Container Initiative) specification.

Podman Architecture

Podman takes a fundamentally different approach with a daemonless architecture. It operates as a user-space tool that directly interacts with the Linux kernel features (namespaces, cgroups) needed for containerization. Podman can run containers in rootless mode, meaning containers can be launched and managed by non-privileged users without requiring root access.

Podman also uses OCI-compliant runtimes and can work with both runc and crun. This architectural difference makes Podman more secure by default and eliminates the risk of the daemon becoming a single point of failure.

Key Takeaway: Podman's daemonless, rootless architecture provides better security and eliminates daemon-related failure points, while Docker's daemon offers centralized management and has been battle-tested at massive scale.

Desktop Editions: Docker Desktop vs Podman Desktop

Both platforms offer desktop applications to simplify container management on developer workstations.

Docker Desktop

Docker Desktop is a mature, feature-rich application available for macOS, Windows, and Linux. It provides:

• Seamless integration with the host operating system
• Built-in Kubernetes cluster for local development
• GUI for managing containers, images, and volumes
• Docker Extensions ecosystem for adding functionality
• Automatic updates and version management
• Resource usage monitoring and controls
• File sharing between host and containers

Docker Desktop runs containers inside a lightweight VM on macOS and Windows, abstracting away the complexity of running Linux containers on non-Linux systems. However, Docker Desktop is not entirely free for all commercial use cases. We will cover this in more detail later.

Podman Desktop

Podman Desktop is a newer offering that aims to provide a Docker Desktop-like experience. Features include:

• Multi-engine support (can manage both Podman and Docker)
• Open-source with no licensing restrictions
• Similar GUI for container and image management
• Kubernetes integration (via Kind, Minikube, or OpenShift Local)
• Extension system for adding capabilities
• Pod management (a unique Podman feature)

Podman Desktop also uses a VM on macOS and Windows through Podman Machine, which creates and manages lightweight VMs for running containers.

Key Takeaway: Docker Desktop is more mature with polish and integration, while Podman Desktop offers similar functionality with a more open ecosystem and no licensing concerns for enterprise use.

Ecosystem Comparison

Image Repositories

Both Docker and Podman work seamlessly with OCI-compliant container registries:

• Docker Hub: The default registry for Docker with millions of images
• Quay.io: Red Hat's container registry, well-supported by both tools
• GitHub Container Registry: Works with both platforms
• Private registries: Both support private registry configuration

Podman uses docker.io (Docker Hub) as one of its default registries, ensuring compatibility with the vast Docker image ecosystem. The command podman pull nginx works just like docker pull nginx.

Licensing and Enterprise Considerations

This is perhaps the most critical distinction for many organizations.

Docker Desktop Licensing

In August 2021, Docker changed its licensing model for Docker Desktop:

• Free for: Small businesses (fewer than 250 employees AND less than $10 million in annual revenue), personal use, education, and open-source projects
• Paid subscription required for: Larger enterprises (250+ employees), Government entities, Commercial use beyond the free tier limits

Everyone requires either a paid or free (personal) subscription for use.

The Docker Business subscription costs per user per month and includes:

• Docker Desktop
• Commercial support
• Single sign-on
• Image access management
• Vulnerability scanning

Important: The Docker Engine itself remains free and open-source (Apache 2.0 license). The licensing restrictions apply only to Docker Desktop. However, these licensing restrictions might be subject to change in the future.

Podman Licensing

Podman is completely open-source under the Apache 2.0 license:

• No licensing fees regardless of company size
• Free for all use cases: personal, educational, and enterprise
• Podman Desktop is also open-source and free
• Commercial support available through Red Hat subscriptions (optional)

Key Takeaway: For large enterprises, Podman eliminates licensing concerns entirely. For smaller teams, Docker Desktop remains free, but you must consider your growth trajectory and potential future licensing costs.

Local Kubernetes Development

Both platforms support running local Kubernetes environments, essential for cloud-native development.

Docker Desktop

• Built-in Kubernetes: One-click Kubernetes cluster activation
• Kind (Kubernetes in Docker): Run Kubernetes clusters in Docker containers
• Minikube: Full support with Docker driver
• K3s: Can run K3s in Docker containers

The built-in Kubernetes cluster in Docker Desktop is convenient but limited to single-node clusters.

Podman

• Kind: Full support for Kind with Podman as the provider
• Minikube: Works with Podman driver
• K3s: Can run K3s with Podman
• OpenShift Local: Excellent integration for local OpenShift development
• Podman pods: Native pod support that maps closely to Kubernetes concepts

Podman's pod concept is unique - you can create multi-container pods using podman pod create, which closely mirrors Kubernetes pod definitions. You can even generate Kubernetes YAML from Podman pods using podman generate kube.

Key Takeaway: Docker Desktop's built-in Kubernetes is convenient for quick setup. Podman's pod support and OpenShift Local integration make it attractive for teams heavily invested in Kubernetes and Red Hat ecosystems.

Pros and Cons Summary

Docker Advantages

• Mature and battle-tested at massive scale
• Polished desktop experience on all platforms
• Largest ecosystem of images, plugins, and tools
• Extensive documentation and community resources
• Better cross-platform consistency for developer experience
• Built-in Kubernetes for quick local development

Docker Disadvantages

• Daemon dependency creates single point of failure
• Requires root privileges for daemon
• Licensing costs for large enterprises using Desktop
• Security concerns with privileged daemon

Podman Advantages

• Daemonless architecture - no single point of failure
• Rootless containers by default for better security
• Drop-in Docker replacement - most commands work identically
• No licensing restrictions regardless of company size
• Native pod support aligns with Kubernetes concepts
• Better systemd integration on Linux
• Open-source with transparent development

Podman Disadvantages

• Less mature desktop experience compared to Docker Desktop
• Smaller ecosystem of third-party tools and extensions
• Less documentation and community resources
• Some Docker Compose features require workarounds
• Windows support is less comprehensive

Conclusion

Docker and Podman represent two excellent approaches to container management, each with distinct advantages. Docker offers maturity, ecosystem richness, and polished tooling, making it ideal for teams prioritizing developer experience and broad compatibility. Podman provides superior security through its daemonless, rootless architecture and eliminates enterprise licensing concerns, making it attractive for security-conscious organizations and large enterprises.

The good news is that you don't necessarily need to make an all-or-nothing choice. Both tools work with OCI-compliant images and registries, and Podman's Docker CLI compatibility means skills and workflows transfer easily between them. As the container ecosystem continues to mature, competition between these platforms benefits everyone by driving innovation and improvements across the board.

Whether you choose Docker, Podman, or a hybrid approach, both platforms are excellent foundations for building cloud-native applications and can effectively support your team's containerization journey.

Personally, I start leaning more towards Podman for security, open-source and local OpenShift development concerns. This way I do not have to worry about any future licensing changes in the world of Docker.