Isn't that essentially what Vagrant and Vagrantfiles do?
Mine is that all of the previous options were too Turing Complete, while the Dockerfile format more closely follows the Principle of Least Power.
Power users always complain about how their awesome tool gets ignored while 'lesser' tools become popular. And then they put so much energy into apologizing for problems with the tool or deflecting by denigrating the people who complain. Maybe the problem isn't with 'everyone'. Maybe Power Users have control issues, and pandering to them is not a successful strategy.
Docker took the approach of specifying images in terms of how to create them from scratch. Vagrant, on the other hand, took the approach of specifying certain details about a machine, then trying to apply changes to an existing machine to get it into the desired state. Since the Vagrantfile didn't (and couldn't) specify everything about that state, you'd inevitably end up with some drift as you applied changes to a machine over time -- a development team using Vagrant could often end up in situations where code behaved differently on two developers' machines because their respective Vagrant machines had gotten into different states.
It helped that Docker images can be used in production. Vagrant was only ever pitched as a solution for development; you'd be crazy to try to use it in production.
Good one.
Even of your image pins apt or yum, images you depend on likely don't.
Docker is repeatable, not reproducible.
Images are repeatable. We like repeatable images. That’s enough for most of us. Don’t break that and we’re good. Just fix build time bullshit please.
not sure if it would be better than Vagrant. But it was still very interesting.