"That it is complex enough that there's a need for a separat setup "explicily designed to be installable on a laptop" is to me an admission that CF is flawed fr

"That it is complex enough that there's a need for a separat setup "explicily designed to be installable on a laptop" is to me an admission that CF is flawed from the outset." I don't get this. The setup for a Chef or Puppet managed 1000 node setup is quite different than it is for your laptop. Is it somehow fundamentally flawed? "Exactly because I refuse to follow a setup built to be easy to get up on a dev machine only to find out that the full production deployment ends up being totally different (a lot of software fails here)." I agree. That's actually not the case in CF / Lattice land, the install is actually bit-identical, Lattice just removes stuff you may not need but a big organization might need (multi tenant security, access/identity management, infrastructure orchestration, etc.) Lattice is pretty dead simple to get up with Terraform or Vagrant. The actual pieces aren't particularly complicated relative to other container schedulers like K8S or Mesos+Marathon. "I'm just in the process of cutting a clients hosting costs by about 80% by ditching AWS for a setup on managed servers, for example, and the full deployment of all the infrastructure we need is" Right, I don't think a platform cloud like CF or even Kubernetes is appropriate to your client base's needs. My issue was with the concept that something like CF is "fundamentally flawed" because it doesn't meet your niche use case. It fills a different niche that presumes an infrastructure cloud to begin with. Most companies are moving OFF of managed services onto clouds, so it's a reasonable assumption. But there will always be a market to cost cut with a dedicated setup, where you play, and that's great. The market's big enough for everyone to get what they want.