> As a result, some docker alternatives aren’t alternatives for me—I want the consistent, fairly complete UI for the things I use it for, and the huge library of images, largely official.
This kind of uniformity of interface and vastness are among the things that made me fall in love with Linux package management as a kid, too. I can see how there's a vital similarity there that could inspire the language you used in your first comment.
> I can’t just use raw lxc or light VMs instead, as that gets me almost nothing of what I’m currently benefiting from.
Right, those will give you the isolation, but primarily what you want is the low commitment and uniform interface to just try something (and if turns out to be good enough, why not leave it running like that for a few years).
I sometimes kind of enjoy packaging work, and even at work I sometimes prefer to build a container from scratch myself when we're doing container deployments, rather than using a vendor one. In fact we've got one ECS deployment where we're using a vendor container where the version of the software that I've got running locally through a package I wrote works fine, but the vendor container at that same version mysteriously chokes on ECS, so we've reverted to the LTS release of the vendor one. Building my own Nix package for that software involved some struggle: some reading of its build tooling and startup code, some attempts to build from source manually, some experiments with wrapping and modifying prebuilt artifacts, some experiments with different runtimes, etc. But it also taught me enough about the application that I am now prepared to debug or replace that mysteriously-busted vendor container before that deployment moves to production.
At the same time, I don't think that pain would be worth it for me for a homelab deployment of this particular software. At work, it's pretty critical stuff so having some mastery of the software feels a bit more relevant. But if I were just hoping to casually try it at home, I'd have likely moved on or just resorted to the LTS image and diminished my opinion of upstream a little without digging deeper.
The (conceptually) lightweight service management point is well-taken. In systemd, which I generally like working with, you always have to define at least one dependency relation (e.g., between your new service and one of the built-in targets) just to get `systemctl enable` to work for it! On one level I like the explicitness of that, but on another I can understand seeing it as actually unnecessary overhead for some use cases.
