[lbriner]

Flexible workload support doesn't sound great to me.

Good tools have very specific use-cases so as soon as you start talking about IIS on windows, VMs, containers etc. it just sounds like lots of the dependencies you are trying to remove in a scalable system.

Containers are relatively restrictive but they also enforce good discipline and isolation of problems which is a good idea imho. I would not want to continue to support our Windows servers running IIS, just too much to sort out.

[glynnforrest]

I understand what you're saying. Fewer runtimes = fewer problems.

It's not going to force your hand. You can disable all the task drivers except the docker driver if you want a container-only cluster. The drivers themselves are lightweight.

In an ideal world, every company is two years old and only produces software in perfect docker containers, but in reality there's always some service that doesn't work in a container but could benefit from job scheduling.

I think it's great that we can add scheduling to different runtimes. Some folks want or need to use those different runtimes, and I like that Nomad lets you do that.

[otterley]

The question often isn't what we as individuals want, though. It's what's good for the business given operational, budgetary, and personnel constraints.

Many people still have mission-critical Windows applications. Windows has nominal container support, but the footprint of a basic Windows container image is extremely high and the limitations of how you can use them are pretty onerous.