This is what initially confused me about comparisons between Docker and wasm, as someone who's long been a fan of both. As far as I know, wasm won't let me apt

This is what initially confused me about comparisons between Docker and wasm, as someone who's long been a fan of both. As far as I know, wasm won't let me apt-get install a bunch of stuff, set up cron jobs, glue together miscellaneous bash scripts, and magically run it without containers or VMs on any host architecture. That's the use case I'm most familiar with for Docker; wasm as I knew it was just a neat way to run untrusted native code on arbitrary machines with reasonable performance and security. I think the disconnect is that Docker is also used as essentially a glorified package manager (sort of like Snap), combined with a runtime/interface that makes it convenient for devops purposes. From that perspective, I suppose there's not much difference between running a standalone binary inside its own dedicated Linux environment, and compiling it to wasm to run directly on the host OS, so long as the API remains unchanged. It's just needlessly confusing to go as far as to call wasm a wholesale replacement for Docker. It's like saying Java is an alternative to Windows.