Exactly, this is what has me so confused. The value I get from containers is the series of steps that create the container, not the underlying implementation. I

Exactly, this is what has me so confused. The value I get from containers is the series of steps that create the container, not the underlying implementation. I don't really care what substrate the software sits in, be it a unimicronanofirecrackerkernelVM or LXC or a chroot jail, besides security implications of isolation escapes. I just like having a deterministic Dockerfile-like file. If I can keep that, sure, I'll buy into your Containers But Not But Really Cloud Native For Actual schtick and use it, especially if it actually is more secure (I'm sure it very likely is). It's the abstraction and model that makes containers easier to work with, not the implementation. I find it very irritating and deceptive that the author wildly equivocates between containers and Kubernetes almost every sentence. And it's incredibly condescending that they suggest people buying the container Kool-Aid are simply too young to have done development and operations on regular servers/VMs, "duh!" Or that they're just trying to pad their resumes. No, I've had plenty of years of experience doing that, and I find containers far simpler to develop with, deploy, maintain, and update. And I've never used Kubernetes. As most others have said, this comes across as extremely patronizing and demeaning marketing FUD from a company so certain that they're obviously right and almost everyone else is mind-numbingly wrong that even if that's actually the case, no one is ever going to believe them; and very justifiably. This is not how you do marketing, or write prose or communicate in general.