> Why are you assuming Windows -- I don't think Windows was mentioned other than the observation that if Windows were involved ... Woops. I let that notion slip into my thinking without adequate cause. Not that it makes any difference -- the threads-in-processes model is pretty much the same across operating systems anymore. > ... that is [Windows Virtualization garbage's] only purpose for existence -- to turn off Amusing. Could be an interesting discussion, and tempting, but quite off-topic here. > Docker is a "kiddies on Linux" thing. It is far more prevalent on Linux ... I know nothing of its popularity versus platform, but I can see the appeal of putatively isolated applications such that admins need not tailor security provisions for them. (Not that it's hard to do, in principle. But labor versus computing cost has changed immensely.) > As far as I have been able to tell, these things all provide no utility at all except that they promote letting idiots be in charge of the asylum and promote instability, ignorance and complication over simplicity, knowledge, and reliability. That was (and is) good for an appreciative chuckle. It does look like one of those things that is more of a management sell than a technically compelling solution. And the managers are typically in charge, at least nominally. (I don't know if the low-IQ folks are the "kiddies" or their managers, if those are not the same.) > For 99.999% of use cases that is fine, who really cares if the whatever IT system is not working for a few weeks -- it does not do anything of any actual use anyway and it is a relief when it is borked. That seems somewhat hyperbolic. Where I've seen IT systems fail, even just partially for days or less, any relief that resulted was pretty well hidden. Of course, my experience may not be representative.