> I can't help but think that their reluctance to use Docker feels contrarian for no reason My impression is that it's less about contrarianism and more about

> I can't help but think that their reluctance to use Docker feels contrarian for no reason My impression is that it's less about contrarianism and more about 1. the developer opting for installation instructions being consistent across both of the intended targets (Linux and (Open)BSD); and/or 2. μMon being allegedly tiny and simple enough that you're probably best off stuffing it into every one of your containers anyway (i.e. so that said containers can expose their own monitoring interfaces) instead of having a dedicated container for it > There's an argument to be made that the "Simple" Network Management Protocol they're a fan of is far from being simple either[2]. Configuring the security features of v3 is not a simple task, and entire books have been written about SNMP as well. They conveniently ignore this by using v2c and making access public, which might not be acceptable in real-world deployments. Agreed here. If SNMP is supposed to be "simple", I'd hate to see what the Complex Network Management Protocol looks like! (I have a similar peeve about LDAP, on that note; I guess compared to wrappers around it like Active Directory and FreeIPA it's "lightweight", but I dread imagining what a heavyweight directory access protocol would entail)