It's sad when people have a myopic view of the use of technology. Docker is a way to distribute an executable environment, very similar to distributing an appl

It's sad when people have a myopic view of the use of technology. Docker is a way to distribute an executable environment, very similar to distributing an application platform. A "fat binary" is literally just a single monolithic executable application. It isn't an environment. It isn't a platform. It's ridgid and difficult to work with and, as the name implies, BIG. There are many cases where a "fat binary" simply can not, does not, will not work. It's a very limiting way to distribute and run an application. Suggesting that a "fat binary" is somehow superior to a Docker environment is not only missing the forest for the trees, it's forgetting that there's a forest. The binary is just one tree. Docker isn't more complex than what we had before. People just haven't been trained on the different patterns of deploying environments and platforms, in addition to applications. We used to build Docker-esque application platforms all the frigging time before Linux containers even existed, and they still exist without Docker. If you have a problem with Docker, that's fine, but it doesn't mean you have to box yourself into a totally different restrictive model. People in this industry need to wake up and admit there are no simple solutions to complex problems. Don't believe the hype.