I agree, though I think containers are a very useful incremental approach towards solving the problem. Declare bankruptcy on fixing the current OS, stick it in

I agree, though I think containers are a very useful incremental approach towards solving the problem. Declare bankruptcy on fixing the current OS, stick it in a tar, and surround it in a new encapsulating system (Docker/k8s) that has isolation/deployment properties closer to what the ideal OS would have. Over time, we can shrink and eventually remove the "old-world OS" in the tar, and develop the new encapsulating system further. We can easily experiment with new features in the encapsulating system without needing to first reinvent everything in the old-world OS. Maybe we'll eventually just shrink the old-world OS out of the picture entirely, or we'll create a brand new purer system in the image of the encapsulating system without the old-world OS involved. Something that really bugs me about a lot of criticisms of containers is that often you get two groups of people agreeing that containers are bad for opposite reasons: one group is fine with the old-world model, and one group that thinks containers don't go far enough in squeezing out the old-world model and replacing it with something better. It makes me worried that it's very easy for the audience to think the conclusion is "containers bad, old-world plain linux server good", which is detrimental to the second group's goal.