[rdtsc]

> That is unnecessarily harsh.

So do you agree that it runs "virtually anywhere" is bullshit or not. I say it is. Is Windows antiquated too? What about Mac OS X?

It is harsh vis-a-vis the claim it makes. If it makes revolutionary claims, it better hold up to harsh criticism.

> Docker legitimately represents a new idea, and some claim,

I agree with that. So "Investigating container models for application deployment" title?

[jpetazzo]

I don't know yet what will happen for Windows, but an upcoming version of Docker will run on OS X. (I say "upcoming" because I know some core maintainers have OS X support in their local branches, so it's just a matter of time before it hits master.)

It doesn't has the same isolation guarantees (yet) but it lets you use the same workflow.

Windows is different, but I can't imagine a scenario where you have to run your app on Windows. I.e. if it's your local machine, you can spin up a VM; if it's in your datacenter, you can use Linux. If your local policies are "we only run Windows on our servers, screw Linux!" chances are that you wouldn't run Docker anyway, even if it ran natively on Windows :-)

[wmf]

Linux/x86-64 Docker images (which is all of them) aren't going to run on OS X unless inside a VM.

[luuse]

I'd say RHEL 5 is fairly outdated and that Windows is irrelevant for a non negligible portion of development shops as a development platform and as a deployment platform.

I don't agree with that it would run "virtually anywhere" but it should at least run on every platform that has binary compatibility with the platform that a container was built for? Getting docker to work on Windows might take a while but Mac could work.

I actually do think Docker or at least the container model will change a lot, i'm considering staying with Linux as my development platform instead of Mac and that's a thought i'd have laughed at two years ago and the sole reason is Docker.