At this rate we should make a fossil of deployments moto, where we claim there is nothing wrong with makefiles and bash scripts :)

like http://programming-motherfucker.com but against triple-buffered-virtualization.

I guess that makes me fossilizing, because this is the direction I think we should really be heading.

When I stare at docker long enough I wind up at "why couldn't this be a static binary" or "this would be easier to secure if it was it's own VM".

Many people are basically misusing Docker to work around Python and Ruby dependency problems.

^ this is a very good point. Someone else's mess, let me put it all together, in a nice pot plant.

9/10 times I see the problems getting solved in the same way you can do without docker, except now the application is also running as root and several more containers are added to work around other issues created by running in docker :(

A Docker container is a lot simpler to maintain than a VM, for just about any task you care to mention.

A static binary is much better than a Docker container, I agree. Unfortunately a lot of useful apps can't or won't ship as a static binary (Java, Python, PHP apps), and Docker makes them behave much more like a static binary.

Java can certainly be shipped as single static binary, AOT compilers exist since around 2000.

Same applies to Python bundlers like py2exe.