[placardloop]

It’s kind of funny that people think of “sandboxing” as the main feature of containers, or even as a feature at all. The distribution benefits have always been the entire point of Docker.

The logo of Docker is a ship with a bunch of shipping containers on it (the original logo was clearer, but the current logo still shows this). “Containers” has never been about “containment”, but about modularity and portability.

[shykes]

Docker introduced an ambiguity in the meaning of the word "container". The word existed before Docker, and it was about sandboxing. Docker introduced the analogy of the shipping container, which as ranger207 says, is about sandboxing at the service of distribution.

The two meanings - sandboxing and distribution - have coexisted ever since, sometimes causing misunderstandings and frustration.

[globular-toast]

It's not about sandboxing or distribution, it's about having a regular interface. This is why the container analogy works. In the analogy the ship is a computer and the containers are programs. Containers provide a regular interface such that a computer can run any program that is packaged up into a container. That's how things like Kubernetes work. They don't care what's in the container, just give them a container and they can run it.

This is as opposed to the "old world" where computers needed to be specifically provisioned for running said program (like having interpreters and libraries available etc.), which is like shipping prior to containers: ships were more specialised to carrying particular loads.

The analogy should not be extended to the ship moving and transporting stuff. That has nothing to do with it. The internet, URLs and tarballs have existed for decades.