[stkrzysiak]

I've been researching container orchestration recently and I personally don't see the incentive to jump into containers from an infrastructure perspective. I think using packer/vagrant/ansible is pretty easy and meets my needs. The orchestration overhead for containers seems like overhead I don't need just yet. So the big question I've been asking myself is at what point will a AWS AMI be less versatile than a docker container, assuming it originated w/ Packer and I can build images to other clouds with packer. From a developer perspective I am very excited about containers and believe local dev w/ docker is warranted.

[gnur]

We mainly use Docker because it finally allows us to eradicate all the "Worked in dev" issues we had in the past. From an application perspective, Dev, Accept and Prod are identical.

Also, we deploy to production at least 4 times a day, the time from commit to deployable to production is about 30 minutes. And because it is a container it will start with a clean, documented setup (Dockerfile) every time. There is no possibility of manual additions, fixes or handholding.

[nol13]

I'm pretty excited for where it's taking things closer to the PaaS end of the spectrum. Been diving down that rabbit hole a bit in search of "easiest way for 2-3 devs to run a reliable infrastructure." Recently moved from EC2 to Heroku, which I'm pretty happy with, but not sure if will be more a stopgap or long-term. I like the direction OpenShift seems to be headed in.

[lowbloodsugar]

> o the big question I've been asking myself is at what point will a AWS AMI be less versatile than a docker container,

AMI only runs on AWS. Docker runs on anything. I don't think "versatile" is the word you are looking for.