3 ms·
Im guessing there is market demand for such a product. I can see a few midsized companies not wanting to deal with k8s upgrades until they go public or get acqu
by pm90 2y ago
Im guessing there is market demand for such a product. I can see a few midsized companies not wanting to deal with k8s upgrades until they go public or get acquired.
My gut reaction is that this is a bad idea. Anyone going this route should instead invest in creating a process to regularly upgrade kubernetes and run it anywhere as opposed to being tied down to canonical. I know the judgement of a lot of great infra folks will be overridden by business folks in the name of stability though… sigh.
- colechristensen 2y agoNo sometimes you just want things to work. Upgrading takes work. Upgrades break things. Upgrades make training required constantly. At some point, you get to thinking "we've got better things to do than upgrade kubernetes", lots of businesses do. It's the kind of software that can be "done". If you've got something that works, you can indeed be happy with keeping it the same for a dozen years.
- mystifyingpoi 2y agoThis. I would never upgrade Kubernetes, if I could get away with it. I don't use any of the new shiny features, I'd be happy if I could stay at 1.21 forever.
- rwmj 2y agoThere's definitely demand for these long lifecycles. Red Hat (the company I work for) recently extended RHEL7 support until 2028, which will be about 14 years after it was first released: https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/announcing-4-years-extended-life-cycle-support-els-red-hat-enterprise-linux-7 https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/announcing-4-years-extended-l...
- bityard 2y agoA large enterprise org that I am close to still has almost 600 CentOS 7 hosts. The good news is that this is a small fraction of their fleet. The bad news is that they have standardized on RHEL 8 everywhere else and there are currently no plans to upgrade to RHEL 9...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]