I've read your reply and I hear you (now). But as far as I'm concerned package management is a little more than that. Not everything that installs or uninstalls software is a package manager-- for instance I would say that winget and Chocolatey are hardly package managers, despite their pretensions (scoop is closer). I think of package management, as an approach to managing software and as a technology, as generally characterized by things like and including: dependency tracking, completeness (packages' dependencies are themselves all packaged, recursively, all the way down), totality (installing software by any means other than the package manager is not required to have a practically useful system), minimal redundancy of dependencies common to multiple packages, collective aggregation and curation of packages, transparency (the unit the software management tool operates on, the package, tracks the versions of the software contained in it and the versions of the software contained in its dependencies), exclusivity (packaged software does not self-update; updates all come through the package manager), etc. Many of these things come in degrees, and many package managers do not have all of them to the highest degree possible. But the way Docker gets software running on your system just isn't meaningfully aligned with that paradigm, and this also impacts the way Docker can be used. I won't enumerate Docker's deviations from this archetype because it sounds like you already have plenty of relevant experience and knowledge.

> I don’t care how it works—I know how, but the details don’t matter for my use case, just the outcomes.

When there's a vuln in your libc or some similar common dependency, Docker can't tell you about which of your images contains it because it has no idea what glibc or liblzma are. The whole practice of generating SBOMs is about trying to recover or regenerate data that is already easily accessible in any competent package manager (and indeed, the tools that generate SBOMs for container images depend on actual package managers to get that data, which is why their support comes distro-by-distro).

Managing Docker containers is also complicated in some ways that managing conventional packages (even in other containerized formats like Flatpak, Snap, and AppImage) isn't, in that you have to worry about bind mounts and port forwarding. How the software works leads to a radically different sort of practice. (Admittedly maybe that's still a bit distant from very broad outcomes like 'I have postgres running'.)

> The outcome is that I have [many services] that leave my base system entirely alone and don’t meaningfully interact with it, with config that’s highly portable to any other distro, all managed with a common interface that would also be the same on any other distro.

This is indeed a great outcome. But when you achieve it with Docker, the practice by means of which you've achieved it is not really a package management discipline but something else. And that is (sadly, to me) part of the appeal, right? Package management can be a really miserable paradigm when your packages all live in a single, shared global namespace (the paths on your filesystem, starting with /). Docker broke with that paradigm specifically to address that pain.

But that's not the end of the story! That same excellent outcome is also achievable by better package managers than ol' yum/dnf and apt! And when you go that route, you also get back the benefits of the old regime like the ability to tell what's on your system and easily patch small pieces of it once-and-for-all. Nix and Guix are great for this and work in all the same scenarios, and can also readily generate containers from arbitrary packages for those times you need the resource management aspect of containers.

> The outcome is that I have [...] official packages

For me, this is not a benefit. I think the curation, integration, vetting, and patching that coordinated software distributions do is extremely valuable, and I expect the average software developer to be much worse at packaging and systems administration tasks than the average contributor to a Linux distro is. To me, this feels like a step backwards into chaos, like apps self-updating or something like that. It makes me think of all the absolutely insane things I've seen Java developers do with Maven and Gradle, or entire communities of hobbyists who depend on software whose build process is so brittle and undocumented that seemingly no one knows how to build it and Docker has become the sole supported distribution mechanism.

> I specifically wrote cross-distro for this reason.

My bad! Although that actually widens the field of contenders to include Guix, which is excellent, and arguably also Flatpak, which still aligns fairly well with package management as an approach despite being container-based.

> Docker “packages” have a broader selection and better support than any of those, as far as services/daemons go

I suppose this is an advantage of a decentralized authority-to-publish, like we also see in the AUR or many language-specific package repositories, and also of freedom from the burden of integration, since all docker image authors have to do is put together any runtime at all that runs. :-\

> service manager

Ok. So you're just having dockerd autostart your containers, then, no docker-compose or Docker Swarm or some other layer on top? Does that even have a notion of dependencies between services? That feels like table stakes for me for 'good service manager'.

PS: thanks for giving a charitable and productive reply to a comment where I was way gratuitously combative about a pet peeve/hobby horse of mine for no good reason