4 ms·

Amazon (and other FAANGs) use OS packages and do not use Docker nor Kubernetes or anything with all that complexity. This is a deliberate choice, at least in A

Amazon (and other FAANGs) use OS packages and do not use Docker nor Kubernetes or anything with all that complexity. This is a deliberate choice, at least in Amazon.

busterarm 7y ago
Fire and Motion.[1] [1]:https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/01/06/fire-and-motion/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/01/06/fire-and-motion/
notacoward 7y ago
Maybe you know how it is at Amazon, but your statement is definitely not true for two other FAANGs. It's well known that Kubernetes is the open-source version of tools that already existed within Google, and Kubernetes itself is part of some public-facing products. I work at Facebook, and we most definitely do have our own equivalent of Kubernetes. It's awful in all of the same ways IMO. We also build fat binaries (and I believe the same is true at Google) but that's orthogonal. So one point for your claim, two against. Maybe someone else can fill in the blanks for Apple and Netflix.
- skube 7y ago
  That's a lie. Was Borg replaced by kubernetes?
- ex_amazon_sde 7y ago
  I'm familiar with different implementation in FAANGs. (I cannot disclose the names.) They are hardly as bloated and vulnerable as Docker+Kubernetes. > It's awful in all of the same ways IMO. > So one point for your claim, two against. It's awful but at the same time it's a claim against... interesting.
  - notacoward 7y ago
    That's not the least bit inconsistent. You claimed that FAANGs do not run anything with the complexity of Docker or Kubernetes. The best thing I can say about that claim is that your information is clearly outdated. Some might call it a lie. Facebook and Google, at least, do use something with equivalent complexity, and the very thing that makes them awful is also the thing that refutes your claim. Don't claim to speak for all companies when you clearly don't know anything about more than one.

Amazon (and other FAANGs) use OS packages and do not use Docker nor Kubernetes or anything with all that complexity. This is a deliberate choice, at least in Amazon.

busterarm 7y ago

Fire and Motion.[1] [1]:https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/01/06/fire-and-motion/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/01/06/fire-and-motion/

notacoward 7y ago

Maybe you know how it is at Amazon, but your statement is definitely not true for two other FAANGs. It's well known that Kubernetes is the open-source version of tools that already existed within Google, and Kubernetes itself is part of some public-facing products. I work at Facebook, and we most definitely do have our own equivalent of Kubernetes. It's awful in all of the same ways IMO. We also build fat binaries (and I believe the same is true at Google) but that's orthogonal. So one point for your claim, two against. Maybe someone else can fill in the blanks for Apple and Netflix.

skube 7y ago
That's a lie. Was Borg replaced by kubernetes?
ex_amazon_sde 7y ago
I'm familiar with different implementation in FAANGs. (I cannot disclose the names.) They are hardly as bloated and vulnerable as Docker+Kubernetes. > It's awful in all of the same ways IMO. > So one point for your claim, two against. It's awful but at the same time it's a claim against... interesting.
- notacoward 7y ago
  That's not the least bit inconsistent. You claimed that FAANGs do not run anything with the complexity of Docker or Kubernetes. The best thing I can say about that claim is that your information is clearly outdated. Some might call it a lie. Facebook and Google, at least, do use something with equivalent complexity, and the very thing that makes them awful is also the thing that refutes your claim. Don't claim to speak for all companies when you clearly don't know anything about more than one.