> Oh, so there's people that don't know how to use containers, so they're bad? What kind of patronising, nanny state kind of argument is that?

You're building rest of your comment on this misinterpretation of my comment.

What I say is "Docker is easy, but it lowers the bar for making mistakes too much. Using Docker without enough information creates bigger problems, faster".

You can do a lot of mistakes, and fatal ones at that, while working on bare metal too. I'm managing systems for 15+ years, using Linux close to 20, and had my fair share on any abstraction level (metal, VM, container, etc.).

However, K8S and Docker is susceptible to create a whole set of problems, and more importantly without knowing it, until it's too late. VMs and bare metal fail relatively early and with more noise. If you do something wrong with your K8S deployment, you can't mend it, and need to re-deploy it.

I do not prefer Docker and K8S, and avoid the latter if I can, but I'm not an hard-line extremist against any of them. I also manage containers and a K8S cluster at work, too.

And no, I never patronize anyone. This is not my style. I just shared my experience, and told that "learning wrong things is easier with Docker", that's all.

I know excellent developers and sysadmins who do wonders with containers, too. Docker and K8S are sharp knives with no warnings on them. That's all.

> Docker and K8S are sharp knives with no warnings on them.

And that's nothing wrong with that. You might also "hurt" yourself by installing software by hand.

Let's agree to disagree, this "it could be dangerous!" argument feels like doubling down on a weak position, but I honestly do not care about fighting someone over the internet about it. Your computer, your rules :-)

> And that's nothing wrong with that.

Yes, except poor documentation and lots of open secrets.

There is no need to fight. We're just discussing. We can do things differently and obtain the same brilliant or disastrous results regardless of the underlying abstraction layer/platform.

All approaches have advantages and disadvantages, so all takes are equally weak IMHO.

Have a nice day,

Cheers.

Docker != containers. You're arguing as if the srht or generally the diy anti-kubernetes crowd was against containers. Or as if docker was the only mean of secure isolation. More likely than not you'll find them running bwrap, lxc, qemu, etc. You're missing your opponents here, it's very much the opposite of conservative sysadmins that went incompetent and don't understand the new tech. It's (imho) people that are fed up with the "click here to deploy a production server", the "infinite elastic scaling" and the fact that most of these false promises are hidden by bloated software. Nobody is saying that docker gets nothing right, just that most of the time others do more of the good and less of the bad.

> I saw a guy in a video creating an insecure container. Thus Docker creates ignorance

It's more than a guy. Once you see that kubernetes is corporate bloat you gotta ask for the responsability of the people making it. Yes it's creating people that don't understand how things are actually wired (and no, this is not a "natural" direction of history). It's making people dependent on complex stuff and it's actually hiding from mainstream knowledge the simple ways to do simple stuff. I recently had to help someone deploy stuff on an openshift hosting and i must say the experience is infuriating (not even talking about the runtime efficiency of managing the bazillion moving parts).