Downvotes without replies is always disappointing. I would be curious to hear what is wrong in my comment above from anyone who has actually worked on general

Downvotes without replies is always disappointing. I would be curious to hear what is wrong in my comment above from anyone who has actually worked on general purpose packaging (e.g., written a package to be included in or overlaid onto a ports tree, maintained RPMs built from RPM spec files, run their own Ubuntu PPA, etc.), implemented tools that scan containers (e.g., SCA scanning or SBOM generation tools), or done reproducibility research. Would someone with an awareness of full-fledged package management solutions based on or built with containers (e.g., Luet, Distri, Flatpak) really argue that having fine-grained abstractions for reasoning about dependencies or shared runtimes, performing security updates, etc., makes no difference as to what kind of software we're talking about and what problems it solves? To me it seems obvious that - not all software distribution mechanisms are package management solutions - Docker cannot see or reckon with individual packages - the Docker ecosystem relies on rather than replaces package managers, build systems, etc. and so on. Are there serious arguments to be had here about those things, or do people just feel like my earlier comment was somehow unkind to Docker?