Containers share kernel from the base operating system so when kernel updates to new incompatible version with breaking changes, how containerize application will continue to work.
So it shouldn't be too painful to run RedHat 4.1 (from 1997) in a container on top of current Linux 4.8 and use that to run software linked against that ancient set of libraries. Probably easier than getting all those libraries to run in a current era userland.
I am experiencing so many issues with Docker and current kernels. I can only envision an attempt to run RedHat 4.1 over a modern system as a recipe for disaster.
Though I don't have any experience of managing containers, argument does not make a lot of sense to me. They are pitched as holy grail which will get rid of entire IT team managing the operating system i.e. upgrades, patching, and configuration management. It just looks counter-intuitive to me as any new upgrade, bug fix , or security patch still needs to be applied to base OS. Containerized application can move freely from one host OS to another host OS but they will still depend on same underlying environment.
They don't. Containers push a lot of that responsibility out to the developers.
You still need operators if you're running your own IaaS substrate.
Disclosure: I work for Pivotal, we do some stuff with containers.
See my blog post here.
https://thehftguy.wordpress.com/2016/11/01/docker-in-product...
It has some code in common with Docker at the lowest level, but the bulk of it is written from the ground up, fully TDD, fully pair-programmed, proved in production for several years running.
I'm also obliged to disclose that I work for Pivotal, the majority donor of engineering to Cloud Foundry.
Disclaimer: I work for Red Hat.