3 ms·

“ For a Linux user, you can already build such a system yourself quite trivially by getting an FTP account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using S

by orf 5y ago

“ For a Linux user, you can already build such a system yourself quite trivially by getting an FTP account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem. From Windows or Mac, this FTP account could be accessed through built-in software.” Or… you could not. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224

bcrosby95 5y ago
So you have a version of Kubernetes that is as easy to use as Dropbox? Where do I sign up for the beta?
- orf 5y ago
  https://aws.amazon.com/eks/ https://aws.amazon.com/eks/
breakfastduck 5y ago
That comment has aged brilliantly. Thanks for that!
adamrezich 5y ago
how is quoting this here relevant? nobody's saying k8s isn't successful or going to be successful—the argument is whether its complexity and layers of abstraction are worthwhile. dropbox is a tool, k8s is infrastructure. the only similarity between this infamous post and the argument here is that existing tools can be used to achieve the same effect as a product. the response here is "that'll never catch on" (because obviously it has), rather it's "as far as infrastructure for your company goes, maybe the additional complexity isn't worth the turnkey solution"
- orf 5y ago
  "You don't need Kubernetes, for a Linux user you can already build a custom solution quite trivially by setting up a custom package repo then build and distribute your application using apt, then configuring SysVinit to monitor your services, whilst using Ansible to configure iptables rules in combination with a simple load balancer you can manage yourself, then use syslog to monitor logs across all your machines whilst hand-waving away secrets management as a problem with 'serverless'" Yes, you could. Some people do. Others don't, because even if you need a small portion of the features a turnkey solution is likely a better choice in the long run than hand-rolling your own mix of 15+ different technologies to achieve the same thing.
fragmede 5y ago
The difference, is that Dropbox is user-facing software, while Kubernetes is software engineer-facing. Dropbox has to be usable by tech-illterate people. Tech-illiterate people have no idea what a Kubernetes is. There is value in creating a vertically integrated solution in a space, similar to what Dropbox did, so if you find yourself building many of the pieces of Kubernetes internally, it's worth considering if adopting Kubernetes wouldn't be a more efficient use of resources.
edoceo 5y ago
Confounded why sshfs wasn't chosen.

by orf 5y ago

bcrosby95 5y ago

So you have a version of Kubernetes that is as easy to use as Dropbox? Where do I sign up for the beta?

orf 5y ago
https://aws.amazon.com/eks/ https://aws.amazon.com/eks/

breakfastduck 5y ago

That comment has aged brilliantly. Thanks for that!

adamrezich 5y ago

how is quoting this here relevant? nobody's saying k8s isn't successful or going to be successful—the argument is whether its complexity and layers of abstraction are worthwhile. dropbox is a tool, k8s is infrastructure. the only similarity between this infamous post and the argument here is that existing tools can be used to achieve the same effect as a product. the response here is "that'll never catch on" (because obviously it has), rather it's "as far as infrastructure for your company goes, maybe the additional complexity isn't worth the turnkey solution"

orf 5y ago
"You don't need Kubernetes, for a Linux user you can already build a custom solution quite trivially by setting up a custom package repo then build and distribute your application using apt, then configuring SysVinit to monitor your services, whilst using Ansible to configure iptables rules in combination with a simple load balancer you can manage yourself, then use syslog to monitor logs across all your machines whilst hand-waving away secrets management as a problem with 'serverless'" Yes, you could. Some people do. Others don't, because even if you need a small portion of the features a turnkey solution is likely a better choice in the long run than hand-rolling your own mix of 15+ different technologies to achieve the same thing.

fragmede 5y ago

The difference, is that Dropbox is user-facing software, while Kubernetes is software engineer-facing. Dropbox has to be usable by tech-illterate people. Tech-illiterate people have no idea what a Kubernetes is. There is value in creating a vertically integrated solution in a space, similar to what Dropbox did, so if you find yourself building many of the pieces of Kubernetes internally, it's worth considering if adopting Kubernetes wouldn't be a more efficient use of resources.

edoceo 5y ago

Confounded why sshfs wasn't chosen.