You'd think. But I think what we're seeing here is the opposite side of the coin flip of that thread that smug idiots like to continually link here where people were saying Dropbox could be implemented in a day using basic Linux tools. Those people in the thread were always correct (I mean, this is "Hacker" news, so people will approach every problem with their hammer... shocking).
Dropbox just happened to get lucky. Docker, not so much. Both have serious competitors, including Google.
> This is a Virtual Vault release of HP-UX, providing enhanced security features. Virtual Vault is a compartmentalised operating system in which each file is assigned a compartment and processes only have access to files in the appropriate compartment and unlike most other UNIX systems the superuser (or root) does not have complete access to the system without following correct procedures.
It's cgroup + chroot, in the closest form.
I took it as a very technically incorrect implication with "I was already doing containers with HP-UX Vaults in version 11 back in 1999." Docker is an development product that removes OS as the core concept from application development process. This is at least a milestone as fundamental as VMware's VM tech.
The commercial failure of Docker container is unfortunate.
But if the technology community cannot appreciate its significance, and let the VM-driven mindset belittle it, that's a true tragedy that puts off the drive to innovate.
https://support.hpe.com/hpesc/public/docDisplay?docLocale=en...
And Tru64, Solaris, BSD also had similar capabilities on the UNIX linage, and naturally IBM and Unisys also had their own versions of the theme on their platforms.
Actually, I believe one text file is the docker killer feature.
It doesn't work bare metal for the new macs, and it is extra bloat instead of making use of macOS capabilities.
Just like any tool that doesn't offer more than an abstraction layer over OS features, eventually it becomes irrelevant as OS tooling improves.