I'm confused. The original post said "why docker compose? a single binary dominates any docker compose", (I assumed dominates here means wins over because it wouldn't make sense otherwise?) someone replied giving the additional benefit of containerization, then someone replied to that saying you get all those benefit from single binaries, and if you want the system isolation you can use a freebsd jail, which is like saying "if you want the benefit of containers you can use containers"

Most applications do ship in a single container. whether it's a single binary inside, or a bunch of python or js files or shell scripts is a separate issue. If there is a dockerfile then you know how to build the container. a single binary is easier to build the container for yourself, assuming you also know the binary dependencies of that single binary. Like maybe ffmpeg or yt-dl cli on the path?

Applications that ship as a list of containers are a completely different problem. Those applications are either a victim of their own success, or have developers that come from a particular background.

I've never felt hindered by docker. It's pretty flexible. If I need even more flexibility I'm reaching for k8s, where I am still containerizing any single go binaries

Are you saying it's hard to edit a docker compose file? Being one service or 5 doesn't really make things more complex. I often point servers at my own postgres container instead of spinning up an extra one (so just remove that from the compose for example). That's kind of the entire point of compose, it's so flexible.

I mean I've seen many single go binaries spin up docker before haha