There There!
I think the same way. I feel like LXC is super powerful and flexible at the same time. Docker and all its terminology around(docker file, compose, swarm and many more) just feels like unnecessary complexity..
A few unixy scripts to automate LXC commands and The infrastructure should be set. The less wheels to grease the better at this level.
I think the point of Docker (and maybe Kubernetes) is that its containers are intended to be stateless one-offs, so they aren't (and can't be) managed like a traditional server. Instead of patching a server, you'd build a new image incorporating said patches and launch that in place of the old one. It's not a bad tool for scalable services that can be stateless (i.e., not databases or file servers), even if I personally haven't quite gotten the hang of that workflow yet.
It took off like crazy for VPS hosting, until superceded (although I know of many that still use it).
OpenVZ was popular enough to support the parent company Virtuozzo/Parallels/SWSoft (many name changes over the years) and the commercial Virtuozzo product is still sold: www.virtuozzo.com .
The lack of OpenVZ being accepted into the kernel, is what eventually killed it IMHO. Since the cgroups and other code that underlies Docker/LXC etc. is in every kernel, it was only a matter of time until the default became accepted and then used widely.
I think that's a lesson of history and market share. It takes combining all the right circumstances for something to really take off. Still blows my mind that *bsd isn't used more often.
My only guess is that, like everything, Microsoft beats it for the reasons MS beats anything: legalese.
For many companies software choice is all about who's behind whatever. I.e. They want an outside entity bound to the service in a legal contract. I think that's a huge reason Microsoft owns the corporate IT sphere and why red hat/ubuntu have some standing while *bsd not so much.
