[stephenr]

> but completely failed to respond to the benefit I gave

You mean this:

> Docker images seem to be turning into the universal package format for distribution, CI, orchestration, resource limiting, etc

That isn't a "benefit". That's "some people are using it for some things". The ridiculous part is, the way e.g. CI shops use Docker, goes against the whole point of Docker. They use Docker to provide lightweight VM's which the project build/test/whatever script can run in (which usually involves installing build/test dependencies), when Docker's whole "thing" is one-process per Container.

Why CI shops don't use LXC/LXD for that, is beyond me.

> It seems like you were just goading someone to justify a rant. That's not nice.

Not at all. You mentioned using Docker with Go. I asked why, and you responded "I don't use it in production... but". Which is what my whole point was about.

[icebraining]

> That isn't a "benefit". That's "some people are using it for some things".

It's not something intrinsic to Docker, but you asked "what exactly is the point of docker with a golang project?" and being able to use those thing out-of-the-box is absolutely a reason to use Docker. Something like Kubernetes is not easily replaced in-house.

> They use Docker to provide lightweight VM's which the project build/test/whatever script can run in (which usually involves installing build/test dependencies), when Docker's whole "thing" is one-process per Container.

Thanks to layering, you can install those build/test scripts and dependencies without affecting the base image.

Also, they don't use LXC/LXD because - everyone else is using Docker! Like I said, there's a real advantage to having a single standard image.

> Not at all. You mentioned using Docker with Go. I asked why, and you responded "I don't use it in production... but". Which is what my whole point was about.

Like I said, I don't think your previous post actually replied to mine. Only this one did.