Docker images can quickly balloon in size if not managed carefully, often due to the inclusion of entire Linux distributions as their base. However, a growing trend in the Docker community is the development of extremely compact base images that pack a surprising amount of punch despite their tiny size.

These minimized images offer several benefits, including a reduced attack surface, fewer dependencies to manage, and faster total build times. As a result, developers are increasingly turning to these lightweight distributions to optimize their Docker workflows.

One of the most popular tiny base images is Alpine Linux, which boasts an impressive 5 MB size. Alpine's minimalism is achieved through the use of musl libc, a statically linked version of the libc runtime, and BusyBox, a compact executable that bundles together simplified versions of common Linux tools. While Alpine's use of musl libc can be a drawback for certain applications, its inclusion of a package manager, apk, makes it a versatile choice.

For an even more minimal image, developers can turn to BusyBox, which can be built directly atop Alpine's components. BusyBox is a single executable that packs a wide range of Linux tools, including file archiving, email sending, process manipulation, and disk searching. With various flavors that support different libc implementations, BusyBox is an extremely flexible option.

Debian users, on the other hand, can opt for Debian Slim, a minimal variant of the popular Linux distribution. By excluding documentation, support for languages other than English, and application-specific components, Debian Slim achieves a significant 40% reduction in image size. Another Debian-based option is Bitnami's minideb, which omits documentation and init-system-related components, but includes a custom install_packages script for non-interactive apt use during container build.

Red Hat provides its own set of container images based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), called Universal Base Images (UBI). The smallest of these, the Micro and Minimal versions, weigh in at 25 MB and 75 MB respectively, omitting components like language runtimes and initialization and service management tools. While Micro doesn't include a package manager, Minimal adds a small subset of conventional dependencies and a minimal package manager (microdnf).

For developers looking to experiment with minimal Docker images, Jérôme Petazzoni's minimage repository offers a wealth of examples for various tasks, language runtimes, and distributions. While not all of these examples are functional, they serve as valuable starting points for composing custom minimal containers.

In conclusion, the trend towards tiny Docker base images is a significant development in the containerization space. By leveraging these compact distributions, developers can improve security, reduce dependencies, and speed up build times, ultimately leading to more efficient and effective Docker workflows.