2) You claim you can roll your very own solution to every single one of these "things Docker adds on top of LXC".

No dumbass. The solutions already exist. Man you're dense. Go back to your bandwagon junior.

^^THIS! is the entire point of my original post, glad you understand that Docker just doesn't bring anything new or compelling to the world.

AC, your inability to see below the surface abstraction layers is your defining characteristic.

Portable deployment across machines. -- LXC templates accomplish this quite nicely, Docker is not needed.

Application-centric. -- "Minimal image" vs "Strictly what's needed by the app" saves 1 or 2 hundred MB? Don't care.

Automatic build. -- Anyone is free to use a state machine with LXC.

Versioning. -- State machine + Git!

Component re-use. -- You can cache with plain old LXC as well. Woot!

Sharing. -- Put your template in GitHub Yay!

Total Ecosystem. -- Don't need Docker to use any of those tools...

I've never used Docker and I've always had cached build steps. It takes less than a second create a handful of [new] containers, making reusable containers basically useless.

Programming, IT, Networking can be done from almost anywhere --

But it is NOT done from almost anywhere. The option to outsource overseas exists NOW and has always existed, AND would be yet cheaper than an H1B hire. The competition is entirely within U.S. borders.

Hype Shmype...

LXC is the core technology, and the part that's actually revolutionary (for linux). Docker is a cool, well thought out, popular, easy-to-use (etc. ad nauseum) front end to LXC. Yes, I know there some interesting features, but I remain unimpressed. It's still a FRONT END to containers. Honestly I don't know why there aren't several competing front-ends like what happened with cd burning software. Maybe because the people competent to make one just don't care -they are still using LXC directly. It -is- drop dead simple.

I know I for one don't want application containers anyway, what's it save me a few hundred MB of disk space? Whatever, I'm still using LXC extensively every day, and I still haven't gone past the front page of Dockers website.

Who the hell are you to take such an offensive paternal tone with anyone? I judge you.

I think the content of articles should not be helped or harmed overall, presuming editors are following policies. And while one could make an argument over which articles exist, I'm not sure there is a compelling argument beyond simple intuition. I mean, I haven't seen a man in HR in a decade, but I wouldn't dream of suggesting HR policies are tilted in any way. Just because the entire department is female doesn't mean they can't be equally concerned with male issues right? I'm not being sarcastic, I've met exactly one woman in HR that I thought had an ax to grind. Can't men be capable of the same impartiality?

I think my opinion on this is 'who cares? good policies and professionalism matter, but gender is irrelevant.'

Hmm. Not seeing where you can claim I 'made shit up' without highlighting your own claim of intellectual superiority. Oh wait, were you referring to the obvious sarcastic hyperbole?

Actually, I -am- intellectually superior to you, our differing opinions on the same situation is ample evidence of this fact. Don't go feeling attacked, check the tone in your original post and understand.

There is absolutely a particular reason they shouldn't, and it's visible to any intelligent person.

When gender balance becomes a politically correct requirement for every occupation or hobby outside of ditch digging, the intelligent person asks "What the Fuck?", while folks like you just jump on the bandwagon and perpetuate ignorance and bias.

Fool.

bleh. submit vs preview. My opinion is nowhere near that strong, but I do want to present a counter-perspective to the vomit I hear kids regurgitating daily.

"As far as developers go, In the Ruby, Python, and Node ecosystems, anything that's not the latest doesn't exist. They don't use the system package management, they use gem, pip, and npm. They really don't care about the underlying OS, until it gets in the way, and getting in the way is exactly what a decade-old OS does."

^^These developers are idiots and don't deserve support.^^

Yeah, I'm aware of everything wrong with that statement, but it's a perspective that's valid for a lot of people. This culture evolved from a flood of Windows refugees that didn't even *try* to work with distributions, or, even worse built a business model that depended on and promoted circumventing it. ( *.io ).

Fuck them, because most of the time they *don't* actually have a compelling technical reason to be on the bleeding edge of project X, they just *start* there to begin with, and spend 0 seconds looking at distro tools. Yeah , I'm looking at you RoR.

WRONG.

The talent pool is clearly not "global". If it was global there would be no need to "import" labor. The talent pool is NATIONAL in this scenario.

When they start outsourcing and moving entire projects overseas, then you can say global. In this context, you may not.

It is confusing isn't it? Again and again someone demonstrates gravity with a sheet and a ball, and again and again there is someone looking for or talking about the 'graviton'.

Another one: The presenter starts off with an illustration of space and time being -the same thing: "space-time". But then goes on to explain space only, or time only, or both but each in their own silo.

My approach to understanding this has been to watch every documentary I can, distill the common, repeated 'truths' and extrapolate a mental image from that. I think space and time are -literally- the same thing (the perpetual expansion of space -is- the passage of time), gravity is -not- a force, there was no big bang, nor was there inflation.

Ok, the last bit is somewhat radical so I'll explain a bit. The universe (space) is always expanding, slower when there is nearby matter with mass, faster when there is not. When galaxies are so far away from each other space expands so rapidly there is a "breach", covering a huge astronomical area, in which energy/matter rushes in uniformly, slowing down the expansion.

I have no math skills and might be completely wrong, but it feels right and I'll probably hold on to this mental model until/unless there is some clear irrefutable proof otherwise. Really, I don't see that happening because (lol) no one is every going to investigate the scenario I just described.

A good study would provide a description of what the internet would look like without ads. My intuition is that I'd be just fine with the only content available being content that did not seek a revenue stream. I thought the internet was better back then anyway.

It's also a pointless study because it's never going to happen. I'd guess the only reason it was done is to support the idea that ad blockers and no script are "bad". Oh wait it was conducted by an ad platform.