> This is not true. There are mature, stable and unlike linux attempts

The comment above was about Docker specifically. I challenge you to run Docker on anything else than Linux (in production, that is).

> You can of course continue to use ill designed software, such as docker

Yeah, you don't use Docker because it's well designed (or even reliable). You use it because it is the strongest industry wide attempt at a standard there has been for the past ten years. There is a semi-standardized image format and api.

When the time comes to move all software to The Cloud, and some believe that to be inevitable (which you may not agree with), odds are that Docker is one of the accepted formats your provider understands.

Jails or zones has nothing to do with this. They are an implementation detail. I find it likely that the cloud will still run on Linux ten years from now.

The comment above, which you're referring to, starts with this:

> Source is a basic understanding of containers and a basic understanding of databases. > > a) Docker and other container systems are still very young. ...

So it's seems to be meant to be about container systems in general, although it then talks about Docker as if it was a representative example (which it isn't).

FWIW I see nothing wrong with using containers (even Docker) for databases. Of course, it depends on what you expect from that - it may for example make automated deployment much easier, etc.

Discussing the modern implementations of containers, like Docker, rkt, and LXC. Things like jails have been time-tested and most of the complaints in the post aren't applicable to them. "Container" has taken on new meaning to mean such new-fangled container frameworks. IMO calling something like a jail a container is now obtuse and incorrect.

My post was primarily referring to Docker, as you can tell from the grandparent that says "Docker and database do not mix", and then the rest of the post body that speaks to Docker-specific issues.