3 ms·

I have a strong feeling that the added complexity of Kubernetes does not give most use cases a net payoff for hobbyists. A lot of the quirks and monkey wrenchin

by hnarn 7y ago

I have a strong feeling that the added complexity of Kubernetes does not give most use cases a net payoff for hobbyists. A lot of the quirks and monkey wrenching with both Docker and Kubernetes seems to be like problems that in many cases were solved in traditional _NIX systems decades ago. I'm sure there are benefits of throwing some of that architecture out for some scenarios but people shouldn't treat it as a new paradigm by default.

karatestomp 7y ago
Docker's been great for hobbyist stuff for me. But I don't really use anything fancy on it, just map some folders for storage I want to survive rebuilds[1] and forward necessary ports to the host machine's interfaces. I don't rely on swarm or any of that. I mostly use it to avoid having to worry about distro-specific crap, since I no longer care to (re-)learn any of that. I don't even use docker-compose since almost none of my personal services depend on one another, just simple shell scripts that all look pretty similar. [1] In some ways this is easier than running traditional daemons, as storage locations for dockerized services tend to be well-documented, prominently, all in one place, and don't change from, say, one package manager to another. You can very easily get all your dockerized services storing their important stuff under one isolated tree, and back up the whole thing. That plus your run scripts are all you need to restore, no matter which host platform you use. [EDIT] in fact, getting Samba set up for my super simple and surely common use case of "I want these folders shared read-only for everyone, and these others writable for this one user" was much easier with Docker than it's been since back when I used Gentoo. The fancier distros all seem to make it a big pain in the ass to do anything other than sharing user directories through the GUI, and change Samba configs between seemingly every major release, and they're always a mess. With the Dockerized version it was one short and sweet arcane magical line per directory I wanted to share, so no clearer, but very short and worked on the first try.
lonelappde 7y ago
It's not helpful to say some unspecified thing is better than a concrete thing people use. What Unix tools are an alternative for Docker? I install an app, I download a VM image, and I have a dynamically sized VM with a nice simple UI to control it. VirtalBox is fine too but more heavyweight for multiple VMs at once, and Docker is where the community and premade VMs images are. Works on any platform. k8s is probably overkill if you aren't prototyping a production cluster.
- wpietri 7y ago
  Packaging an app in Docker is work up front and then ongoing overhead to manage. If something I write is only going to ever run on one server, it may be easier for me just to install it on the base system, not in a container.
rumanator 7y ago
> I have a strong feeling that the added complexity of Kubernetes does not give most use cases a net payoff for hobbyists. Kubernetes is a tool to setup and manage computer clusters comprised of COTS hardware, and also manage how processes are deployed and ran on it. That's not exactly your typical hobbyist's scale.

by hnarn 7y ago

karatestomp 7y ago

Docker's been great for hobbyist stuff for me. But I don't really use anything fancy on it, just map some folders for storage I want to survive rebuilds[1] and forward necessary ports to the host machine's interfaces. I don't rely on swarm or any of that. I mostly use it to avoid having to worry about distro-specific crap, since I no longer care to (re-)learn any of that. I don't even use docker-compose since almost none of my personal services depend on one another, just simple shell scripts that all look pretty similar. [1] In some ways this is easier than running traditional daemons, as storage locations for dockerized services tend to be well-documented, prominently, all in one place, and don't change from, say, one package manager to another. You can very easily get all your dockerized services storing their important stuff under one isolated tree, and back up the whole thing. That plus your run scripts are all you need to restore, no matter which host platform you use. [EDIT] in fact, getting Samba set up for my super simple and surely common use case of "I want these folders shared read-only for everyone, and these others writable for this one user" was much easier with Docker than it's been since back when I used Gentoo. The fancier distros all seem to make it a big pain in the ass to do anything other than sharing user directories through the GUI, and change Samba configs between seemingly every major release, and they're always a mess. With the Dockerized version it was one short and sweet arcane magical line per directory I wanted to share, so no clearer, but very short and worked on the first try.

lonelappde 7y ago

It's not helpful to say some unspecified thing is better than a concrete thing people use. What Unix tools are an alternative for Docker? I install an app, I download a VM image, and I have a dynamically sized VM with a nice simple UI to control it. VirtalBox is fine too but more heavyweight for multiple VMs at once, and Docker is where the community and premade VMs images are. Works on any platform. k8s is probably overkill if you aren't prototyping a production cluster.

wpietri 7y ago
Packaging an app in Docker is work up front and then ongoing overhead to manage. If something I write is only going to ever run on one server, it may be easier for me just to install it on the base system, not in a container.

rumanator 7y ago

> I have a strong feeling that the added complexity of Kubernetes does not give most use cases a net payoff for hobbyists. Kubernetes is a tool to setup and manage computer clusters comprised of COTS hardware, and also manage how processes are deployed and ran on it. That's not exactly your typical hobbyist's scale.