3 ms·

There's a lot of FUD in here, like suggesting that Google wouldn't use something written in Go for this purpose (lol,) suggesting an open source platform that c

There's a lot of FUD in here, like suggesting that Google wouldn't use something written in Go for this purpose (lol,) suggesting an open source platform that can span multiple clouds is an attempt to lock people into GKE (lol 2x,) and suggesting that Kubernetes is "married" to Docker (CNI? CRI?) or isn't extensible (the entire gRPC/REST API? custom resources? device plugins?) People use Kubernetes for the ecosystem, the "shit around it." They even formed a foundation for the "shit around it" called the CNCF. And if you think all of that stuff is just for GKE lockin, maybe take a look at gRPC sometime. I don't disagree that Kubernetes is not positioned to be a replacement for Borg, at least not for many years. It has a lot to go and the Storage API is indeed a sore spot for the Kubernetes project in general. But this realization is a very long walk from "Kubernetes was designed to lock people into GKE."

jsmthrowaway 8y ago
> I don't disagree that Kubernetes is not positioned to be a replacement for Borg Good. Because that was my point, but the verbiage “don’t disagree” says a lot. We agree, except for the timeline. We will all be dead before Borg is replaced with Kubernetes. You can take that to the bank. Kinda weird to fire up a throwaway, presumably to conceal your Google credentials, then attack a Xoogler who used to work on Borg SRE (alongside sjh under Peter Dahl, and long enough my NDA has long since lapsed) and has run Kubernetes since it was able to OOM as I described, for spreading FUD. The term FUD implies that I don’t know what I’m talking about and I’m making shit up, while I’m one of the few people, including presumably you, who can actually coherently comment on both. It can only span multiple clouds now because other clouds had to ship Kubernetes. Remember the timeline: hello world, we made a container thing. Now we offer it as a service. Now Amazon does too. Oh, we are now multicloud. Your rebuttals are quite disingenuous, and casting them with a mocking aspersion doesn’t sell your point. It makes you come across nothing like you intend. Get back on your real username and stop being offended I criticized Kubernetes. I know I’m one of the few who does, but there are legitimate concerns, and sharing them toward a “why Borg isn’t going anywhere” point is a weird hill for you to die on.
- throwawaykbfud 8y ago
  >Good. Because that was my point. Fair enough, but you said a whole lot of other crap that is very much misleading in my opinion, and I was addressing all of that. >It can only span multiple clouds now because other clouds had to ship Kubernetes See, this is the kind of thing that makes me treat this as FUD rather than just criticism. I was running Kubernetes on AWS long before Amazon offered a service for it. If Kubernetes wasn't open source and instead each cloud provider came up with their own implementation, would that have been better? >Get back on your real username No thanks. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why.
  - jsmthrowaway 8y ago
    I’m talking about competitors to GKE, which is the entire thesis of that point and that you refuse to acknowledge, which is why you’re knee jerking FUD. I’m a solo developer. I make a Kubernetes app. Do I think Kubernetes is great if I have to build a CloudFormation thing to spin up all of its infrastructure and run it myself, or would I rather pay big company to do it? The latter. GKE. EKS/etc. They exist for that use case because that’s where the lock in happens. Now you’re a Kubernetes deployable and too dug in to get off. For a while, your only option was GKE or (God help you, at first) running it yourself. Now other vendors have stepped up to compete, which is the exact situation Google wanted. They shook out the Kubernetes issues with the early adopters with ops experience, then went after pure developers, and had first mover advantage on that customer until the others were forced to respond. I wish I could tell you how many teams I’ve consulted with who when I say “where are we deploying?” immediately say Kubernetes on GKE without a second thought. That is what Google wanted. This doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out, but if you work on Kubernetes I wouldn’t expect you to know this strategy firsthand. It would come from Diane or her people. You’re just having a hootin’ and hollerin’ grand old time building some open source software with a foundation (ooo! So OpenStack!) and mindshare and all the cool kids surrendering their startup to go all in on Kubernetes. Meanwhile, you’re supported by Google, and in fact were conceptualized, to drive sales to Google Cloud. Sorry. Did you ever ask yourself what the higher level point of Kubernetes is? Like, why throw an entire team on shipping an entire new infrastructure category just to open source it? To make operations better for the industry? Google competes on operations. To use public company capital to chase a hobby? Think about the leadership decision to initiate Kubernetes, and why it was made. > but you said a whole lot of other crap that is very much misleading in my opinion The entire comment was quite clearly in support of Google’s decision calculus to not replace Borg. Your rebuttals are honestly more misleading, in my opinion, than my points, because you’re personally wrapped up in it and that’s coming across.

jsmthrowaway 8y ago

> I don't disagree that Kubernetes is not positioned to be a replacement for Borg Good. Because that was my point, but the verbiage “don’t disagree” says a lot. We agree, except for the timeline. We will all be dead before Borg is replaced with Kubernetes. You can take that to the bank. Kinda weird to fire up a throwaway, presumably to conceal your Google credentials, then attack a Xoogler who used to work on Borg SRE (alongside sjh under Peter Dahl, and long enough my NDA has long since lapsed) and has run Kubernetes since it was able to OOM as I described, for spreading FUD. The term FUD implies that I don’t know what I’m talking about and I’m making shit up, while I’m one of the few people, including presumably you, who can actually coherently comment on both. It can only span multiple clouds now because other clouds had to ship Kubernetes. Remember the timeline: hello world, we made a container thing. Now we offer it as a service. Now Amazon does too. Oh, we are now multicloud. Your rebuttals are quite disingenuous, and casting them with a mocking aspersion doesn’t sell your point. It makes you come across nothing like you intend. Get back on your real username and stop being offended I criticized Kubernetes. I know I’m one of the few who does, but there are legitimate concerns, and sharing them toward a “why Borg isn’t going anywhere” point is a weird hill for you to die on.

throwawaykbfud 8y ago
>Good. Because that was my point. Fair enough, but you said a whole lot of other crap that is very much misleading in my opinion, and I was addressing all of that. >It can only span multiple clouds now because other clouds had to ship Kubernetes See, this is the kind of thing that makes me treat this as FUD rather than just criticism. I was running Kubernetes on AWS long before Amazon offered a service for it. If Kubernetes wasn't open source and instead each cloud provider came up with their own implementation, would that have been better? >Get back on your real username No thanks. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why.
- jsmthrowaway 8y ago
  I’m talking about competitors to GKE, which is the entire thesis of that point and that you refuse to acknowledge, which is why you’re knee jerking FUD. I’m a solo developer. I make a Kubernetes app. Do I think Kubernetes is great if I have to build a CloudFormation thing to spin up all of its infrastructure and run it myself, or would I rather pay big company to do it? The latter. GKE. EKS/etc. They exist for that use case because that’s where the lock in happens. Now you’re a Kubernetes deployable and too dug in to get off. For a while, your only option was GKE or (God help you, at first) running it yourself. Now other vendors have stepped up to compete, which is the exact situation Google wanted. They shook out the Kubernetes issues with the early adopters with ops experience, then went after pure developers, and had first mover advantage on that customer until the others were forced to respond. I wish I could tell you how many teams I’ve consulted with who when I say “where are we deploying?” immediately say Kubernetes on GKE without a second thought. That is what Google wanted. This doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out, but if you work on Kubernetes I wouldn’t expect you to know this strategy firsthand. It would come from Diane or her people. You’re just having a hootin’ and hollerin’ grand old time building some open source software with a foundation (ooo! So OpenStack!) and mindshare and all the cool kids surrendering their startup to go all in on Kubernetes. Meanwhile, you’re supported by Google, and in fact were conceptualized, to drive sales to Google Cloud. Sorry. Did you ever ask yourself what the higher level point of Kubernetes is? Like, why throw an entire team on shipping an entire new infrastructure category just to open source it? To make operations better for the industry? Google competes on operations. To use public company capital to chase a hobby? Think about the leadership decision to initiate Kubernetes, and why it was made. > but you said a whole lot of other crap that is very much misleading in my opinion The entire comment was quite clearly in support of Google’s decision calculus to not replace Borg. Your rebuttals are honestly more misleading, in my opinion, than my points, because you’re personally wrapped up in it and that’s coming across.