Docker's MO is to become "that thing that is on all servers" so that when they flip the switch and start monetizing off support and tertiary services, people will be more-or-less locked in.
It has indeed surprised me how quickly a normally-slow-to-accept-new-things community has adopted Docker (even well before it was considered "stable").
> how quickly a normally-slow-to-accept-new-things community
I think you're referring to the sysadmin community - but I think the driver for this has been the search for deployment nirvana. Deployment is a much more fragmented field, so it makes sense that a good solution would find fertile ground.
Absolutely. Not only does it simplify deployment, you also get the ability to quickly spin up a new development environment. That means it's easy to dip a toe in and slowly increase how much you use it.
> You are not "locked in" by Docker Inc if you are using Docker just like you aren't locked in by Github if you are using git.
A much more accurate analogy would be you are not "locked in" by Oracle if you are using MySQL. It may be true today, but no guarantee that will always be the case.
Despite the attempt of some to move goal posts, you're still guaranteed that you won't be locked in by Oracle even tomorrow. You still have the source code for the version you're running right?
If people think the software moves in the wrong direction it will be forked (see MariaDB). Nothing world changing will happen.
Docker Inc. seems to make a lot of effort to ensure Docker is a truely open project. I get the feeling that people think that handing your project to Apache is the only way to prevent vendor lock in these days.
It has indeed surprised me how quickly a normally-slow-to-accept-new-things community has adopted Docker (even well before it was considered "stable").