Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kubernetes Documentary: A Critical Review

cloudcritical.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 131 posts

Re: Kubernetes Documentary: A Critical Review

#11

Post by riccardomc »

tombh wrote: post #10
arianvanp wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that contributors have been referring to the kubernetes codebase as "the clusterfuck" in talks I think it's fine to say "shit". https://archive.fosdem.org/2019/schedule/event/kubernetesclu... It's a great talk to figure out how the kubernetes codebase works

Hmm yes, but when Kris Nova says it it's different

Why? Our field is plagued by Authority Bias and this is one fine example.

“You should, in science, believe logic and arguments, carefully drawn, and not authorities.” [1]

[1] https://twitter.com/anammostarac/status/1495594139865731074

Re: Kubernetes Documentary: A Critical Review

#12

Post by sovietmudkipz »

I regularly listen to the kubernetes podcast run by Google employees. Through time and through various guest interviews I've gotten the impression that some (most?) who created borg/kubernetes did basically all of the work that Docker did creating containers but are upset Docker has all that recognition. I can't quite articulate it but it seems like the Googlers are super judgmental and want to snub their noses at Docker.

Re: Kubernetes Documentary: A Critical Review

#13

Post by tombh »

riccardomc wrote: post #11
tombh wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm yes, but when Kris Nova says it it's different

Why? Our field is plagued by Authority Bias and this is one fine example. “You should, in science, believe logic and arguments, carefully drawn, and not authorities.” [1] [1] https://twitter.com/anammostarac/status/1495594139865731074

But that's exactly my point, Kris carefully draws her arguments. Which is what gives her her authority, not the other way around.

Re: Kubernetes Documentary: A Critical Review

#14

Post by arianvanp »

tombh wrote: post #10
arianvanp wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that contributors have been referring to the kubernetes codebase as "the clusterfuck" in talks I think it's fine to say "shit". https://archive.fosdem.org/2019/schedule/event/kubernetesclu... It's a great talk to figure out how the kubernetes codebase works

Hmm yes, but when Kris Nova says it it's different

Yeh I think I understand what you mean. The context is different when somebody says it as the perspective of a contributor. Then just a sideline comment without a 1 hour talk of context to contextualize the remark

Re: Kubernetes Documentary: A Critical Review

#15

Post by danpalmer »

I'm not sure this was authored in full good faith. Things like dismissing Kubernetes attempts to "abstract away the servers" as being pointless because we already had virtualisation is at best ignorance of the differences, and at worst, gaslighting.

It's clear that the author doesn't like Kubernetes, and to be honest this documentary is unlikely to change their mind because they are not the target audience.

All the "criticism" about Kubernetes being a Google strategy could well be valid, but it's not exactly new, unique, or particularly impactful here.

(Disclaimer, I work at Google, nothing to do with cloud/k8s)

Re: Kubernetes Documentary: A Critical Review

#16

Post by jasonrichardsmi »

tombh wrote: post #13
riccardomc wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Our field is plagued by Authority Bias and this is one fine example. “You should, in science, believe logic and arguments, carefully drawn, and not authorities.” [1] [1] https://twitter.com/anammostarac/status/1495594139865731074

But that's exactly my point, Kris carefully draws her arguments. Which is what gives her her authority, not the other way around.

Thanks for the response. I knew of this talk, and had delved into the code base years ago. I did not want to deal with that specific issue in the article because it diverted from the main discussion. My assumption this was a known aspect of the code base, from that talk to the security review Kubernetes received. Obviously it not a known, when I roll out an update to the webpage I will link to that fosdem talk.

Re: Kubernetes Documentary: A Critical Review

#17

Post by goodpoint »

sovietmudkipz wrote: post #12

I regularly listen to the kubernetes podcast run by Google employees. Through time and through various guest interviews I've gotten the impression that some (most?) who created borg/kubernetes did basically all of the work that Docker did creating containers but are upset Docker has all that recognition. I can't quite articulate it but it seems like the Googlers are super judgmental and want to snub their noses at Do…

Most of the heavy lifting to implement containers was done by the kernel developer community and projects like LXC.

Yet, docker and kubernetes are very much hype/marketing driven and took away a lot of recognition from the kernel developers.

Re: Kubernetes Documentary: A Critical Review

#18

Post by jasonrichardsmi »

danpalmer wrote: post #15

I'm not sure this was authored in full good faith. Things like dismissing Kubernetes attempts to "abstract away the servers" as being pointless because we already had virtualisation is at best ignorance of the differences, and at worst, gaslighting. It's clear that the author doesn't like Kubernetes, and to be honest this documentary is unlikely to change their mind because they are not the target audience. All the "…

Hi danpalmer, I kind of hit on this in the article. How do you think abstracting away the server adds any value in "public cloud"? Where you can get bespoke VMs, with no concern for the underlying hardware? Can you elaborate?

Re: Kubernetes Documentary: A Critical Review

#19

Post by charcircuit »

jasonrichardsmi wrote: post #18
danpalmer wrote: post #15

I'm not sure this was authored in full good faith. Things like dismissing Kubernetes attempts to "abstract away the servers" as being pointless because we already had virtualisation is at best ignorance of the differences, and at worst, gaslighting. It's clear that the author doesn't like Kubernetes, and to be honest this documentary is unlikely to change their mind because they are not the target audience. All the "…

Hi danpalmer, I kind of hit on this in the article. How do you think abstracting away the server adds any value in "public cloud"? Where you can get bespoke VMs, with no concern for the underlying hardware? Can you elaborate?

I think part of the confusion is that server can refer to both a physical box and a VM. Abstracting away servers is about not having to think about VMs. You have a service which requires some amount of compute, memory, and storage and you just want that service to run. There is value to not having to worry about provisioning a VM or administering it.

Re: Kubernetes Documentary: A Critical Review

#20

Post by mahathu »

danpalmer wrote: post #15

I'm not sure this was authored in full good faith. Things like dismissing Kubernetes attempts to "abstract away the servers" as being pointless because we already had virtualisation is at best ignorance of the differences, and at worst, gaslighting. It's clear that the author doesn't like Kubernetes, and to be honest this documentary is unlikely to change their mind because they are not the target audience. All the "…

What does gaslighting mean in this context? I thought it meant making the "victim" question their own sanity/perception of reality?
Post reply on HN