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

Docker Raises $23M

docker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 281 posts

Re: Docker Raises $23M

#261

Post by still_grokking »

halfmatthalfcat wrote: post #176
caymanjim wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kubernetes is so much more than most people should want or need. It's far too complicated and heavyweight for smaller or simpler deployments. In AWS, most people should use ECS/Fargate instead. There are other competing container environments as well. Your point still stands; Docker popularized containerization and are in danger of becoming irrelevant because they ceded the container execution environment to others.

I beg to differ. The jump from learning Docker (and containers generally) to learning Kubernetes is not “hard”. Sure it’s a different paradigm of application deployment but I’ve seen far too many posts on HN that completely undermine its value in the name of difficulty. You can use it if you’re not “at scale” completely fine and reap all the benefits as if you were. Idk it’s because people hate Google, so they hate K…

You can just run Nomad to reap the benefits of a cluster manager without all the headaches with Kubernetes.

Re: Docker Raises $23M

#262

Post by gravypod »

nullserver wrote: post #221
gravypod wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very few people who suggest using kubernetes are suggesting using kubespray or kubeadm. 99% of companies will want to just pay for a managed kubernetes cluster which, for all intents and purposes, is basically AWS ECS with more features and less vendor lockin. It should be also known that all "run your code on machines" platforms (like ECS) have similar issues. I remember using ECS pre-fargate and dealing with a lot…

So 1/4 to 3/4 of a million per year in salary. Plus disrupting all the developers. So far every large scale implementation i have seen has cost the developers a year in productivity.

I have heard of people taking "years" to migrate to kube but only on HN and only on company who's timelines for "lets paint the walls of our buildings" stretch into the decades. But, even once you move, you get benefits that other systems don't have.

1. Off the shelf software (even from major vendors [0])

2. Hireable skill set: You can now find engineers who have used kubernetes. You can't find people who've already used your custom shell scripts.

3. Best practices for free: zero-downtime deploys can now be a real thing for you.

4. Build controllers/operators for your business concepts: rather than manually manage things make your software declaratively configured.

[0] - https://cloud.netapp.com/blog/cvo-blg-kubernetes-storage-an-...

Re: Docker Raises $23M

#263

Post by gravypod »

brianwawok wrote: post #242
nullserver wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So 1/4 to 3/4 of a million per year in salary. Plus disrupting all the developers. So far every large scale implementation i have seen has cost the developers a year in productivity.

Hi. I run my production 7 figure ARR SaaS platform on google hosted k8s. I spend under 10 minutes a week on kubernetes. Basically give it an hour every few months. Otherwise it is just a super awesome super stable way for me to run a bunch of bin-packed docker images. I think it’s saved me tons of time and money over lambda or ECS. It’s not F500 scale, but it’s over 100 CPU scale. Confident I have a ton of room to sc…

If you end up making a blog post about how you do your deployments/monitoring and what it's enabled you to do I think it'd be a great contrast to the "kubernetes is complicated" sentiment on HN.

Re: Docker Raises $23M

#264

Post by wisty »

halfmatthalfcat wrote: post #176
caymanjim wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kubernetes is so much more than most people should want or need. It's far too complicated and heavyweight for smaller or simpler deployments. In AWS, most people should use ECS/Fargate instead. There are other competing container environments as well. Your point still stands; Docker popularized containerization and are in danger of becoming irrelevant because they ceded the container execution environment to others.

I beg to differ. The jump from learning Docker (and containers generally) to learning Kubernetes is not “hard”. Sure it’s a different paradigm of application deployment but I’ve seen far too many posts on HN that completely undermine its value in the name of difficulty. You can use it if you’re not “at scale” completely fine and reap all the benefits as if you were. Idk it’s because people hate Google, so they hate K…

Go to any Kubernetes page and it's all heavyweight "nodes" and "containers" and "tasks" and "resources" (some of which seem to have very special meanings). It's not easy to get into.

I don't think this is some oversight on behalf of the technical writers. They don't lack the ability to explain it in simple terms, they're putting up a warning sign. If you want to join Kubernetes, it's going to mean your entire way of doing things will now be the Kubernetes way, it's not just going to be a few lines of code you add to a Make file.

A lot of people are wary of these heavyweight systems, because it's going to end up a fairly hard dependency.

Re: Docker Raises $23M

#265

Post by fomine3 »

stingraycharles wrote: post #188
cletus wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Github is a good comparison here because obviously anyone can run a Git server but Github did create a lot of value adds and the UI helped build a network effect for the ease os use, cloning, PRs and so on. What's more, Github became the engine for dependency management. Go springs to mind here. I actually thought this was a terrible system (eg putting repo owner names in import strings) but it speaks to ubiquity of…

> I'm really not sure what Docker could've done differently here. I think they should have realized orchestration was “the” thing for production much sooner. It’s not like you can’t integrate with cloud vendors on your own; there are plenty of managed service providers where you can get hybrid cloud solutions, Docker could have bet big on this. Instead they came with swarm, which was focused too much on self-managed…

They were initially dotCloud!

Re: Docker Raises $23M

#266

Post by fomine3 »

Terretta wrote: post #161
ForHackernews wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it reductive? I do ask the same question for all those other systems, or the meta-question: "How is it that the bloated monstrosity of Kubernetes somehow became the de-facto container orchestration tool?" Is this just sysadmins buying themselves job security?

On the contrary, nobody was thinking of the sysadmins (until we injected the notion of Operators rather late). Devs chose K8s, I think the evangelism phrase was “developer dopamine”. It felt like the Rails of DIY infra, where devs could inherit an opinioned pattern for doing n>1. There’s still decades of resentment of devs being gated by IT.

Devs chose K8s, really?

Re: Docker Raises $23M

#267

Post by grogenaut »

halfmatthalfcat wrote: post #231
thow-01187 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, adopting Kubernetes is seldom a well informed decision weighting the pros and the cons. Usually it's a stampede effect of higher-ups pushing for Kubernetes, because everyone else is, without really understanding what it entails. The truth is, Kubernetes is awesome, it brings many features to the table. But it also requires ~10% additional very expensive headcount, ~20% more tasks overall, and prolon…

Speaking from personal experience, I feel like you just pulled those numbers out of thin air. At my job, we went from overly complex Elasticbeanstalk deployments to pushing out new releases via Helm charts into k8s...deployment time vastly improved as did cognative load on what was actually happening. I'd never go back.

Beanstalk, while great when it came out, is not a great solution now. It was also never really meant for teams who run things at scale. It also got quite complicated because it just didn't expose a lot of knobs.

I think you'd find ECS or similar as easy to work with as k8s and all of them will be faster than beanstalk.

Beanstalk is ALWAYS purposefully slow, this is by design. It mimics how amazon deploys internally, slow and steady wins the race to safety. It also has some really bad issue if from from a bad deploy back to a broken app; eg you can wedge it pretty bad.

Anyway at this point I don't think Beanstalk is a fair thing to compare to. It's good you moved off.

Re: Docker Raises $23M

#268

Post by FooBarWidget »

Terretta wrote: post #161
ForHackernews wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it reductive? I do ask the same question for all those other systems, or the meta-question: "How is it that the bloated monstrosity of Kubernetes somehow became the de-facto container orchestration tool?" Is this just sysadmins buying themselves job security?

On the contrary, nobody was thinking of the sysadmins (until we injected the notion of Operators rather late). Devs chose K8s, I think the evangelism phrase was “developer dopamine”. It felt like the Rails of DIY infra, where devs could inherit an opinioned pattern for doing n>1. There’s still decades of resentment of devs being gated by IT.

Is that so? My experience is the opposite: devs don't want to learn Kubernetes YAML, they just want to git push and have someone else take care of deployment.

Re: Docker Raises $23M

#269

Post by stickfigure »

halfmatthalfcat wrote: post #231
thow-01187 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, adopting Kubernetes is seldom a well informed decision weighting the pros and the cons. Usually it's a stampede effect of higher-ups pushing for Kubernetes, because everyone else is, without really understanding what it entails. The truth is, Kubernetes is awesome, it brings many features to the table. But it also requires ~10% additional very expensive headcount, ~20% more tasks overall, and prolon…

Speaking from personal experience, I feel like you just pulled those numbers out of thin air. At my job, we went from overly complex Elasticbeanstalk deployments to pushing out new releases via Helm charts into k8s...deployment time vastly improved as did cognative load on what was actually happening. I'd never go back.

Elastic Beanstalk is a halfhearted attempt at reproducing Google App Engine or Heroku. It is not comparable.

GAE, on the other hand, is dreamy compared to K8s. I once moved some infrastructure to K8s because it was costing too much on GAE; I ended up moving it back because it was worth it. We've subsequently moved it to Digital Ocean's PaaS but that's a different story...

Re: Docker Raises $23M

#270

Post by [deleted] »

cletus wrote: post #164
qeternity wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I am normally critical of the unicorn pizza-kitchen-on-wheels type of excess, I think this is only true in hindsight and has a lot to do with Docker lacking a commercially minded founder. Open source isn’t a business model. There are very synergistic business models that go hand in hand with OSS but that distinction is important. Github does not really have a defensible moat. I think the network effects there a…

Github is a good comparison here because obviously anyone can run a Git server but Github did create a lot of value adds and the UI helped build a network effect for the ease os use, cloning, PRs and so on. What's more, Github became the engine for dependency management. Go springs to mind here. I actually thought this was a terrible system (eg putting repo owner names in import strings) but it speaks to ubiquity of…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN