I think some of the comments shed light on an interesting dichotomy I've noticed while talking to folk about K8s: It seems that if you stick to simple configs,

I think some of the comments shed light on an interesting dichotomy I've noticed while talking to folk about K8s: It seems that if you stick to simple configs, a setup hosted for you, etc, basically the happy path then people have had really good experiences with k8s. Those people can't understand how one could be inept enough _not_ to figure it out. On the other hand, you'll also hear a lot of complaints about the difficulty of self-managed clusters, and attempting certain less popular or more complicated configs (or what have you). These people can't understand what benefit introducing such an insane amount of complexity could bring. The second has mostly been my experience. I've tried now maybe a handful of times to create a cluster and get it running something on my home lab. At first I could rarely get it "up", but now I can usually get it to the point where I'd want to include storage or whatnot, and that's where I've been failing lately. Either way, I've never gotten it stable enough to warrant actual usage from me. I like the idea of k8s; it seems like the natural next step of computing abstractions. I'm just not sure if "it's it", or if it's stable/reliable/evolved enough for people who don't need it now to invest in it yet.