> I am not advocating for anything just pointing out that the features atributed to Docker existed before. No one contends that they existed before in isolatio

> I am not advocating for anything just pointing out that the features atributed to Docker existed before. No one contends that they existed before in isolation or even as a proprietary assemblage; the contention is whether or not they were available as an off-the-shelf tool or a simpler assemblage that is affordable to companies who are not "leading tech companies". > Absolutely not. Amazon never had such system. You are confusing Google with all leading tech companies probably. Why do you think "Amazon never had such a system" is a definitive rebuttal to "most leading tech companies had a system like X"? In any case, tell me about the systems that existed at leading tech companies that were comparable to Docker and accessible/practical for non-industry leaders... > Is this why the same features set claimed by both things? I'm not sure how to parse this, but it sounds like you might be implying something like "because Docker has a naive image building story, its primary purpose is to be an softare build system". > Again, what is the problem you are trying to solve with Docker/K8? Docker solves for standard software packaging and distribution; kubernetes solves for standard, efficient software orchestration. Of course you can throw really smart, well-paid engineers at the problem to devise, build, maintain, and operate a bespoke system that accomplishes a similar end.