> A lot of organizations are getting real value out of Docker (and Kubernetes and NoSQL and React and all of the other trendy new things) At the risk of nitpic

> A lot of organizations are getting real value out of Docker (and Kubernetes and NoSQL and React and all of the other trendy new things) At the risk of nitpicking a word that may have been just used for emphasis, how can you be sure the value is real, though? Perceived value can be tough to tell apart, especially in a monoculture (called "herd mentality" earlier, perhaps too uncharitably). Also, even if the value is real, is it technical, or political/behavioral? If it's the latter, that doesn't minimize theri value, but let's not pretend their advantages are technical. We could, instead, discuss if using the new tool is the best (or only) way to effect that change. It may be. It may even be that which tool it is doesn't matter, so long as it's different, as has turned out to be the case in ergonomics and RSI. We've certainly seen some negative "NoSQL" headlines. How many startups used it to their eventual detriment, just following a trend and/or doing premature optimization? I'm not saying it can't provide value, rather than mere popularity and even perceived value, especially initially [1] > saying that "no one needs it" is just as myopic and wrong as being part of the herd mentality. I think that's what's called a "shallow dismissal" and is discouraged by the guidelines. The bare statement would be mere hyperbole and could possibly be "just as" wrong, but it was in reference to an entire article, which lays out the technical reasoning, which it's up to you to refute and point out they myopia of. [1] I am reminded of how "easy" MySQL replication was always touted to be.. except that people choosing it did so with an empty database. If it broke, with a far-from-empty database, I found myself wishing for one of PostgreSQL's much more "difficult" options.