Since you were there, can you comment on discussions you might have had, where tradeoffs were chosen which would have led to buildah instead of Docker e.g. prioritization on cross platform support? Your comment seems written in a very after the fact way, but surely someone was agonizing overs these choices before they became history.
Sorry for the slow response, just got off an airplane. These were not after the fact. Instead, we knew these were the potential benefits and we moved over. I personally wasn't happy about having to run a daemon to get a container, but we saw the benefits far outweighed the downside for the approach. The other approach on the table was for docker (pre client/server split) to continue requiring sudo. I don't recall anyone suggesting an alternative approach though.
Oh on multi arch support. This was purely about keeping focus and reducing the original scope. I shared the same concerns and brought up this exact topic with Solomon. A change here meant changes in docker hub and other key places including devops which would further burden an already stretched team.
I should review the comment a bit more carefully sometimes.
