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

51–60 of 131 posts

Re: Kubernetes Documentary: A Critical Review

#51

Post by mohanmcgeek »

goodpoint wrote: post #17
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.

> kernel developer community

This effort was funded in part by Google.

Re: Kubernetes Documentary: A Critical Review

#52

Post by beepbooptheory »

0des wrote: post #47
beepbooptheory wrote: post #45

I think the format of this review is rather strange, a little hard to get into. Coming from the humanities, when I think "critical review" I think a wholistic and encompassing argument about the foundations of the subject, and it is not determining of whether the writer is going to critique the subject at hand, or agree with it. Examples and textual analysis are used carefully in order to speak to the grander mechani…

I think they put the word Critical in there because it is the name of the website.

Ah.. My bad I did not get that, I guess then this is merely an issue of semantic overlap then. Either way I get that I was pendantic.

Re: Kubernetes Documentary: A Critical Review

#53

Post by [deleted] »

Trasmatta wrote: post #38
mahathu wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Gaslighting has almost entirely lost its original meaning because people use it for anything now. Drives me crazy.

[deleted]

Re: Kubernetes Documentary: A Critical Review

#54

Post by umvi »

Trasmatta wrote: post #38
mahathu wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Gaslighting has almost entirely lost its original meaning because people use it for anything now. Drives me crazy.

Same with "toxic" which now just means "any speech I don't like"

Re: Kubernetes Documentary: A Critical Review

#55

Post by jobegrabber »

jasonrichardsmi wrote: post #16
tombh wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even then there's arguably a stark contrast between

>The clusterfuck hidden in the Kubernetes code base and the brilliant refactoring techniques developed to fix it

and saying

>[...] forking a large code base, especially one as shit as Kubernetes, and still getting community support can be daunting without some sort of titanic change in the market.

especially since the former talks about techniques that fixed the "clusterfuck".

I know you didn't bring that talk into the discussion, however you didn't cite any sources at all. From my POV simply stating that the Kubernetes code base is "shit" without extending on it comes off as anything but neutral and fair.

If you want to sound reasonable, I would either make clear that that sentiment is your personal opinion and/or comes from your experience, or at least cite some sources.

Re: Kubernetes Documentary: A Critical Review

#56

Post by darkwater »

On one side there are the Kubernetes corporate enthusiasts that are probably exactly doing what this post i saying: try to remove the advantage that AWS has over all the other vendors. On the other, we are also plagued by AWS shills/fanbase that hate Kubernetes exactly because of that (they are trying to push you toward serverless with Lambda). In the middle ground there is probably the truth, where AWS had a programmatic API that enabled automation for years, and that Kubernetes *is* hip, it adds even more automation to the game and helps attracting/retaining talent in the current hot market. But technically you could totally have a working startup, mid-size or big company without using Kubernetes.

Re: Kubernetes Documentary: A Critical Review

#57

Post by jobegrabber »

arianvanp wrote: post #14
tombh wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Even then the talk is about a clusterfuck _within_ the code base and how it got fixed.

It clearly doesn't label the current state of the code base as a clusterfuck in general.

Re: Kubernetes Documentary: A Critical Review

#58

Post by jasonrichardsmi »

mohanmcgeek wrote: post #46

A bulk of this criticism seems to rely on the author's understanding that somehow Google app engine and AWS were competitors before Google seriously realised that AWS was a high margin business that was bankrolling all of Amazon. I remember those days and Google app engine was trying to compete with Heroku. Google is also known to exist in markets in the form of 20% projects and not take put serious muscle behind tho…

Google released VMs in 2013, the year of this documentary, which means they were working on it for some time prior to this discussion.

Re: Kubernetes Documentary: A Critical Review

#59

Post by crmd »

I find ‘heterodox blogger’ to be one of the more annoying business personas.

When I had to work at IBM in the early 2000s because of an acquisition, we met a lot of ‘corporate edgelords’ whose personal brand was built on eloquently explaining to IBM audiences how every cloud computing innovation coming out of West Coast tech companies already existed on the mainframe since the 1970s, and was therefore stupid to invest in. Their big closer was usually some version of how ‘Silicon Valley is so far behind IBM they think they’re ahead’.

These were the same guys who ran Lotus Domino in their home lab for fun because gmail was stupid.

Very tedious.

Re: Kubernetes Documentary: A Critical Review

#60

Post by herodoturtle »

> It also makes me think if OSS is created solely to promote profit margins, is that really good OSS, or just a tactic to wrap strategy in a thin veneer of altruism?

Is that not a false dichotomy?

Kubernetes could promote profit margins for Google whilst simultaneously being good for OSS.

Sure, if Kubernetes was touted purely as being about what's good for OSS, then that would be disingenuous. But throughout the documentary they allude to Google wanting to look after its bottom line.

So for me personally, I think that the quoted passage above (and several other parts of the write-up) are a tad biased.

Interesting read nonetheless.

Post reply on HN