> you also might be in the minority here I'd be astounded if I'm not. The tech industry is ridiculously cargo-culty. I never said I expect the majority of peop

> you also might be in the minority here I'd be astounded if I'm not. The tech industry is ridiculously cargo-culty. I never said I expect the majority of people to agree with me, I said what I prefer. The majority of people probably think McDonalds is just fine, and that Google is "not so bad" too, and it doesn't bother me that other people disagree with my opinion. If you ask me to fix your fucked infra because someone threw together a Rube Goldberg like Kubernetes environment just to achieve rolling deployments of their application, I'm going to tell you it's a shit solution, just as if you asked me to critique a McDonalds hamburger I'm going to tell you it's a shit hamburger. Me saying it's shit doesn't mean you can't use the thing, it means my opinion is that there are better ways to solve the problem/achieve the desired outcome, and you can either accept that opinion and make a change, or disagree and I'll go provide my services to another client. It's really that simple. > thousands of collective man years put into making them better They've had a ridiculous large number of man years working on them, no question. The whole point is that we disagree about whether they're "better" or not. Adding complexity is not necessarily making something better. > i would still take a collection of containers over the nightmare of 10 different webapps all being deployed in an instance of GlassFish/Tomcat In... a decade and a half of doing this I think I've been asked to support one JVM based thing, and that was quite a while ago. I'm sure it is a shit show, but I'm also sure that there are better alternatives than 8 more layers of abstraction. Lightweight VM-like containers are literally a thing that exists, and can give essentially the same provisioning as a traditional VM, with the "lightweight" / "shared resources" aspect of a container solution.