3 ms·

Your argument definitely applies to Backend-as-a-Service kinds of software and I agree 100%, but the nice thing about the Docker/Kubernetes combo is that it giv

Your argument definitely applies to Backend-as-a-Service kinds of software and I agree 100%, but the nice thing about the Docker/Kubernetes combo is that it gives you an abstraction but it does so in a way that doesn't prevent you from tinkering with the internals. The only downside I can think of is that tinkering with those internals can become trickier in some cases (because now you have to understand how the container and orchestration layer works). But if you pick the right abstraction as the base for your project, then you may never have to think about the container and orchestration layer.

greenshackle 10y ago
Maybe I was unclear, what I meant is that usually you need to tinker with the internals at some point. Which is fine, but it does mean you need more than basic knowledge to use the tool productively. (And if the software is proprietary and poorly documented, you're SOL). The lie is that this tool is so easy, you just have to read this 30 minute tutorial and you'll be able to write powerflu software and you don't even need to learn the internal mechanics of it. I havn't used Kubernetes, it's possible it's so good that you don't need the learn the messy details, I'm just sceptical of that claim in general.