Sure, but to say that just because Burns works at Microsoft now is a good reason to think that MS is a containerization leader is a total non-sequitur. Google, however, is _the_ containerization leader, having created CGroups and having run everything in containers for a decade before they became "cool".

FWIW, Google certainly led on cgroup development for a while, but the cgroupv2 maintainer works at Facebook, and we're active in upstream container development in both linux and systemd.

I don't necessarily think you're wrong; I just think your argument, as stated, is weak.

OP never said it was the leader, just catching up quickly. Microsoft have released a ton of tools lately for Kubernetes.

Microsoft is undoubtedly A containerization leader at this point, I never claimed they were THE containerization leader. The fact is that there is likely not a huge difference at this point between the big 4 (I'd include IBM since they bought RedHat.) Kubernetes is no longer that new and all 4 big cloud providers have had plenty of time to more or less be on par with each other. I'm sure Google has some other insight, but I doubt it's so much that many people are flocking to their service for it anymore.

> Microsoft is undoubtedly A containerization leader at this point

If that was remotely true then what product/service does Microsoft offer that is remotely comparable with Docker/Kubernetes and is neither Docker or Kubernetes?

Service Fabric.

Now, I happen to think Kubernetes is better, but you asked. Service Fabric was available to the public in 2016 but has been used internally since 2011.

Why would that matter? If their kubernetes infrastructure is the most polished and production ready of the bunch, then I’d say they’re the leader.

> Why would that matter?

Because you lead nothing if all you do is reuse the tools developed by the actual leaders. That's what followers do, not leaders.