What you're talking about is one aspect of part of implementing DevOps that is often misinterpreted to mean the whole of it. And yes, it is stupid to call that DevOps. That's just Ops using different tools.
I see it as the opposite. Patrick's core DevOps...
"Thanks to the devopsdays conference, the idea of devops seems to live on. While talking with other people about it, I realize that it is difficult to frame it within the current IT landscape. At lot of the ideas are coming from different kinds of emerging technologies (T) and process management (P) approaches.
For me the two most important observations are:
there is a increase in feedback loops between business, all parts of the delivery process and operations
thanks to this feedback loops we increase the quality and speed up the flow"
This is the core of DevOps, not well described, but pretty clearly about IT, not development. This is the core. Very, very loosely defined to the point of useless, sure.
Then things like DevOps talking dev itself is the extra, the tack on later. It's not "part of" devops, any more than it is of any operations. And just how operations doesn't cease to exist without developers, neither does DevOps.
I believe everything on that page is all meant to be within the context of companies doing development. But I agree, the core of DevOps is about Ops and Business practices. However, I firmly believe the name DevOps comes from Ops and Development working together, and thus the reason why discussions of DevOps implementation specifics centre around companies doing software development. Though just based on that page, I could see why someone could still take a different view. However, I consider The DevOps Handbook to be the definitive source, rather than notes on the initial discussions.
I think doing that makes DevOps a pointless, useless concept. Hopefully that's not what he intended. As an ops practice, it has tremendous value. As a merger of dev and ops, it's just bluster.
I wonder what that will do against Virtualization platforms like XenServer, VMware, et al...
if an lxc-container is functionally equivalent to a VM... Would it be possible to run Windows in an lxc-container... That type of thing.
No, we've had those containers for a decade and we are nowhere near having Windows in them. They all share the parents' kernel by definition. So no Windows coming on Linux containers. Much closer to PV Windows on Xen, at least that has been done in a lab.
What about Containerization on Windows? Didn't OpenVZ or Virtuozzo...used to offer something like that?
You can, in theory, make Windows containers on Windows. But you have to be on Windows already.
I find this one a little surprising. When I worked on Wall St. we were rolling out containers in 2006. If these banks are just talking about "looking into" containers now, they are a full decade behind where we were.