> This is why I like docker,

my understanding is that docker would not have helped in that scenario

it really depends on the scenario but if the application was dockerized and they had an image, it would be just starting it again, somewhere else.

Possibly with the same network settings if the licensing check was based on that.

But of course it can easily go south, though testing the recovery of a container based off an image and mounted volume is simple and quickly shows you if it works or not.

But of course it may work today but not tomorrow because the software was not ready for Y2K and according to it we are in the XX century or something and the license is 156 years ... young. Cannot allow this nonsense to proceed, call us at <defunct number>

IT is full of joy and happiness

> it really depends on the scenario

yeah and that scenario was clear:

> Turns out some of the software running on it had some weird licensing checks tied to the hardware so it refused to start on the new server.

"hardware" does not mean "bare metal". It could be a MAC, a serial number or similar things that may be linked to a generic or clonable value in virtualization.

but docker isn't virtualization, you understand this, right ?

To some extent, yes -- having developed apps that were dockerized, and having managed virtualization systems (ESXi and similar), as well as docker engines.

I am not sure I see your point, though.