> So the proposal is another layer of indirection, à la namespaces, à la where-have-I-seen-this-before. Every year or two another group of people gets it into

> So the proposal is another layer of indirection, à la namespaces, à la where-have-I-seen-this-before. Every year or two another group of people gets it into their heads that there is "something wrong" with the way distributions do things, and they have "the answer". (Often the answer involves a lot of new names for things.) These groups always make a lot of noise, launch a bunch of new projects to reinvent a lot of wheels "the right way", and draw a bunch of media attention. All of the users who like this sort of thing immediately desert the previous group and leap to this new one. Last year's group somehow manages to become even louder as their userbase dwindles. Meanwhile, the established distros dig into what this latest group is doing, and finally manage to cut away enough of the rhetoric to identify what real advantages it has. This usually boils down to a couple of features buried behind several gigabytes of blogs, mailing lists, wikis, and enthusiastic-but-content-free rants. The established distros usually say "yeah, that could be handy" and implement these new features, without rewriting the world. Sound familiar? This one looks like some folks decided docker wasn't complicated enough and renaming everything would let them make a new thing. If you look through their summary proposal, it's a list of things which you can already do, albeit without there being any single distro you can install today which has all of them working out of the box (largely because cryptographic verification and docker are still works-in-progress - they'll get there).