[kazinator]

Where does Docker guarantee that it won't trash your system?

See here: https://www.docker.com/legal/docker-terms-service/

Under EXCLUSION OF WARRANTIES and LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.

Here, Bocker is also a replacement for Docker in exactly the same sense: Bocker's simple statement "I can't guarantee it won't trash your system" is a concise alterantive to a wall of legalese.

[kristopolous]

To be fair one is for demonstration purposes and the other is intended to be used. They seek the same protections regardless. It's kind of like how a $1,000 water filtration system wants the same legal protection that a $15 Brita does or heck, I'd assume if you got scammed with a fraudulent water filter that used orgone energy and crystals, it too would also want those legal protections.

You'd probably want to tread cautiously if someone doesn't use disclaimers - that's probably a more dangerous product.

[kazinator]

Sure, but in this case both Bocker and Docker just orchestrate features of Linux, which is where all the risks and complexity lies.

To verify that Bocker adds no additional issues is a smaller job than verifying Docker in the same way.

If there is some problem in the actual containerization, Bocker and Docker will be equally affected.

[okamiueru]

Isn't the argument presented here that just because two things have the same "no responsibility in event of failure"-clause does not mean likelihood of failure, robustness, battletesting, etc, are comparable? Or am I missing something

[bottled_poe]

But.. it’s not a good alternative. This description is not as precise or as bounded as the “legalese” wording.

[makapuf]

Well, I didn't read the legalese but read this short sentence. That makes it 1000% better for me right now, you can't abstract away the message channel. Maybe the best would be to have a short 10-line summary then the legally bounding legalese. (Edit: nonsense spelling error)