[jrochkind1]

> It seems more approachable to developers than ssh and working with real servers.

I think the problem with "ssh'ing into real servers" is reproducibility, right?

I say this as someone who does not use Docker and does not understand it and is scared of it, heh.

But the reason I think I probably should/will have to eventually learn it and use it, is I'm not sure there's a better solution to reproducibility, meaning basically "infrastructure as code", which really means "the state of the infrastructure as code".

Ansible/chef/etc are not great solutions. I haven't used Docker much yet, but my impression is that this is what leads people to Docker, liking it better than these alternatives specifically for reproducibility/"infrastructure as code"?

[pensatoio]

Yeah, you nailed it. Definitely take the dive yourself. Docker has made it so that we can run any of our tens of services locally with nothing more than a git clone and make up. It’s a great feeling!

[number6]

You can "ssh" into a docker image and then commit it. Than you can ship the binaries __or__ you can write down all the steps and ship the source (Dockerfile).

So it's something like a mix out of infrastructure as code, vms and baremetal. Something like vagrant but with lesser overhead.

[zapita]

I think that's exactly right.