The article tries to sell it to people who can't run Docker locally (e.g. locked down permissions in enterprise environments, slow old laptop), but hasn't it already been possible to use remote Docker engines?
So the news is that they're offering to host those remotes now, right?
Nah. It's just 15 years later they finally try to find a niche would also bring them monies. There are a lot of business who would just offload (yes, I did it too) the burden of compliance to a 3rd party - and this is the reason it's mentioned quite prominently there.
Good for them but they should had done this ten years ago.
So the news is that they're offering to host those remotes now, right?
Good for them but they should had done this ten years ago.