I have a server with a bunch of services just as Docker containers. I see that Proxmox is popular among the self-hosting community. I was wondering why?
I understand that running things in a VM provides better security than running them in a container. But is the difference so important given the relatively low risk that an exploit happens inside a container that leads to doing damage to the host machine?
There's also obviously the additional overhead of using Proxmox. It wouldn't be an issue for me as I should have enough resources to, say replace all my Docker containers with VMs. I'm more wondering if the security difference is so massive, or if there is another reason I'm missing why people use Proxmox.
Or am I misunderstanding how people use Proxmox? I was assuming people would use it like how you use Docker, i.e. different services get their own VM/container. If you have a different kind of setup I'd be interested in hearing it.
Edit: I would appreciate if people stop being pedantic and actually read the post. Obviously I am aware that you can run containers in VMs, or containers on bare metal alongside VMs. That's not what the question is and you know it.
So what are you suggesting is in question then? The licences sold for games will differ from game to game; if one of then were legally unsound, that wouldn't automatically make all of them legally unsound, and obviously that's local to the legal system in which that finding was made. That selling licences to play games is categorically unlawful? I think that's not a particularly plausible outcome, and is unlikely to propagate beyond the given jurisdiction the finding happens in if such a ruling were to happen.
There's no "the court system". There are court systems. You've only linked to US case law, which, for instance, doesn't apply to me. This does just seem to be a legal fetish (in the anthropological sense, not the sexual sense). A court ruling something or other doesn't even have worldwide legal implications, let alone worldwide epistemological implications.
As for what counts as piracy (a separate matter to the rabbit hole we've gone down), something being a legal term does not mean that the definition of the word matches 1:1 with its legal description. I'm sure we can both think of examples of murder which is not criminalised as murder by a given government, for example. Words are defined by their use, and people use piracy to refer to a method of obtainment.