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

The Kubernetes Kustomize KEP Kerfuffle

gravitational.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 51 posts

Re: The Kubernetes Kustomize KEP Kerfuffle

#31

Post by gouggoug »

mfer wrote: post #25
gouggoug wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is why it was open sourced, as a balance between control leverage and adoption. I feel like I read this kind of statement all the time and I don't understand the reasoning behind it. Google came up with k8s. They could have kept it for themselves, or, open source it. They open-sourced it. It definitely benefits them, but, it also benefits us a lot. Saying they "open sourced, as a balance between control levera…

Why did Google create Kubernetes and open source it? Why did the people who created Kubernetes all leave Google? What was the business strategy behind it all? After all, the created omega but it never did replace borg. Kubernetes wasn't meant to replace borg, was it? Google didn't create and release Kubernetes out of the goodness of their hearts. Have you ever pondered the strategy behind it all? Maybe they couldn't…

> Why did the people who created Kubernetes all leave Google?

Brendan Burns went to Microsoft to work on Kubernetes on Azure. He'd been working at Google for 8 years already. Microsoft probably paid a lot to acquire him and it wouldn't be surprising if he saw it as an exciting opportunity to keep working on his creation while leading an exciting new project.

Joe Beda and Craig McLuckie left together to found a company whose product _is_ Kubernetes (Heptio).

So I could guess they just realized that their resume opened them to exciting new opportunities.

> Have you ever pondered the strategy behind it all?

Yes, and I can't see what it could be, so I'd love to be enlightened.

So far all I see is that I'm using an amazing software that has considerably simplified my life when dealing with my infrastructure. I so happen to be using GKE (and maybe _that_ was the grand evil plan all along!), but I know that I could use AWS or Azure or even go back to bare metal if I wanted to.

Re: The Kubernetes Kustomize KEP Kerfuffle

#32

Post by aberoham »

mfer wrote: post #16

Since I was at the core of what the article wrote about I feel the need to jump in. Some of the quotes are from me, after all. kustomize vs Helm is a bit if an improper comparison. Kustomize and the ways to use kubectl are often about configuration management and Helm is about package management. This is an important difference. For example, take Ansible doing configuration management and using Helm to install a pack…

Hi mfer! Writer here, wonderful to virtually meet you. I applaud your unique gusto and framing of questions. (btw, pretty much every question/quote was from you)

From afar it looks like `kubectl -k` is due to land despite the expressed concerns. What was your response to sig-arch and sig-cli leads who mentioned that the kustomize features were always intended to be there? I may have missed that, if it was public.

Do you expect that the march toward kustomize inclusion will change after the kubectl usage data has been collected and analyzed?

And what are you setting your sights on next? May I write about it? :)

Re: The Kubernetes Kustomize KEP Kerfuffle

#33

Post by aberoham »

thockingoog wrote: post #29
mfer wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did Google create Kubernetes and open source it? Why did the people who created Kubernetes all leave Google? What was the business strategy behind it all? After all, the created omega but it never did replace borg. Kubernetes wasn't meant to replace borg, was it? Google didn't create and release Kubernetes out of the goodness of their hearts. Have you ever pondered the strategy behind it all? Maybe they couldn't…

> Why did the people who created Kubernetes all leave Google? Umm, we didn't? > created omega but it never did replace borg It did have material impact on Borg. Sometimes the strategy is simply "we know how to do this, and we'd prefer not to see you go through all the same pain to figure it out".

Timmy!! When will knative and istio be handed over to a foundation? Does LF/CNCF have enough carrots in Jim Zemlin's bag of tricks??

'tis fascinating to dig in to open source serverless on Kubernetes options only to realize that there's probably 100+ engineers working on istio+knative, ~10x more than any prior alternative.

When is KnativeCon coming?

Re: The Kubernetes Kustomize KEP Kerfuffle

#34

Post by justicezyx »

gouggoug wrote: post #18
justicezyx wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You missed the key part. This is why it was open sourced, as a balance between control leverage and adoption.

> This is why it was open sourced, as a balance between control leverage and adoption. I feel like I read this kind of statement all the time and I don't understand the reasoning behind it. Google came up with k8s. They could have kept it for themselves, or, open source it. They open-sourced it. It definitely benefits them, but, it also benefits us a lot. Saying they "open sourced, as a balance between control levera…

A for profit company doing something with balanced objectives, how is hat ill intentioned?

Re: The Kubernetes Kustomize KEP Kerfuffle

#35

Post by jacques_chester »

justicezyx wrote: post #6
jacques_chester wrote: post #4

I've been on both sides of this sort of divide, as both insider and outsider. It's easy to see it as politics. I do, pretty much all the time, but that's because I have a background in politics. I'm primed to assume the worst. I think the explanation is simpler. If you are a Googler, you mostly talk to Googlers, you mostly come to quick consensus that way, and it all makes sense to you and the Googlers you had casual…

You missed the key part. This is why it was open sourced, as a balance between control leverage and adoption.

I've argued something similar but not identical, which is that Google wanted to commoditise container platforms to stop AWS from moving further ahead. Scorch the earth, basically. That's what I meant by strategy guiding allocations. Google put their shoulder to the wheel with people, funding and sustained PR.

But that's still different from the day-to-day goings-on being discussed here. The fate of Kustomize is not the stuff grand strategy. My argument is addressed to that level.

Re: The Kubernetes Kustomize KEP Kerfuffle

#36

Post by jacques_chester »

aberoham wrote: post #33
thockingoog wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why did the people who created Kubernetes all leave Google? Umm, we didn't? > created omega but it never did replace borg It did have material impact on Borg. Sometimes the strategy is simply "we know how to do this, and we'd prefer not to see you go through all the same pain to figure it out".

Timmy!! When will knative and istio be handed over to a foundation? Does LF/CNCF have enough carrots in Jim Zemlin's bag of tricks?? 'tis fascinating to dig in to open source serverless on Kubernetes options only to realize that there's probably 100+ engineers working on istio+knative, ~10x more than any prior alternative. When is KnativeCon coming?

I don't think he's involved very closely.

Since folks get so worked up about allocations unofficially shaping decisions, I suggest[^] that Knative be homed with the Cloud Foundry Foundation, where the rules are written to give votes based on how many fulltime contributors you assign. That way it's all out in the open.

Disclosure: I work for Pivotal, which is in both the CFF and CNCF. I was aware of Knative relatively early.

[^] in a ha-ha-only-serious way

Re: The Kubernetes Kustomize KEP Kerfuffle

#37

Post by justicezyx »

aberoham wrote: post #28
justicezyx wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like you to start a series on less-formal activities surrounding the k8s community. For example, public events, new major adopters, war story of using k8s that affect k8s' fundamental technical philosophy, etc.

Gravitational blog posts[1] I've participated in are generally in these topic areas. Any more specific requests? [1] https://gravitational.com/blog/

One thing comes to mind is to describe how k8s has evolved in a certain time frame, and some of interesting changes of courses (if any) and important events, controversies, etc.

This is very difficult to write though, needs to go through a huge pile of history. Just my selfindulged request.

Re: The Kubernetes Kustomize KEP Kerfuffle

#38

Post by spiffxp »

aberoham wrote: post #9
justinsb wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the cause. The release team asked for KEPs for all new features in the next release and the deadline was today.

Indeed, someone in a separate channel explained that new sig-pm staffing is at the root of the resurgence of KEPs. Thanks justinsb, no relation to GCP's Justin Santa Barbara?

Other way around. Hi I'm the Kubernetes 1.14 release lead, I work for Google, and I'm the guy who said "bumpy road"

During the Kubernetes Contributor Summit at KubeCon Seattle last year, I made lots of noise about using KEPs, and about needing non-technical contributors to help those of us who are "organizationally challenged". In what I hope was a response, people showed up at SIG PM.

See https://youtu.be/_7IIzH_4yUk?t=998, https://youtu.be/mwG2CzdCg_8?t=1389, and https://youtu.be/mwG2CzdCg_8?t=1893 if you want to see me rambling about it on camera

I think this conversation was really kicked back up in earnest as a result of Windows node support not landing in 1.13 due to a lack of clarity on what the bar was for release. There were other enhancements that could have had a smoother landings in this and previous releases, but this was definitely when we realized we needed to overhaul and document this part of the project.

Re: The Kubernetes Kustomize KEP Kerfuffle

#39

Post by aberoham »

qlk1123 wrote: post #19
the_duke wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your writing style is hilarious, bordering on poetic. It is somewhat hard to follow the actual information though, and non-native speakers will probably struggle quite a bit.

Non-native reader/kubernetes learner here. I know only keywords from this article. It's a pity that I cannot get the full meaning of it, but still it provide a chance for me to learn some upstream news. Thanks for speaking out for us!

Hi! If you're up for it, I'd love to do a recorded video/voice call to listen to your feedback and perhaps even try to fill in the topic areas that non-obvious to learners. Talking to folks about 'nettes is the highlight of my day. Send a note to the email in my profile?

Re: The Kubernetes Kustomize KEP Kerfuffle

#40

Post by mfer »

aberoham wrote: post #32
mfer wrote: post #16

Since I was at the core of what the article wrote about I feel the need to jump in. Some of the quotes are from me, after all. kustomize vs Helm is a bit if an improper comparison. Kustomize and the ways to use kubectl are often about configuration management and Helm is about package management. This is an important difference. For example, take Ansible doing configuration management and using Helm to install a pack…

Hi mfer! Writer here, wonderful to virtually meet you. I applaud your unique gusto and framing of questions. (btw, pretty much every question/quote was from you) From afar it looks like `kubectl -k` is due to land despite the expressed concerns. What was your response to sig-arch and sig-cli leads who mentioned that the kustomize features were always intended to be there? I may have missed that, if it was public. Do…

> What was your response to sig-arch and sig-cli leads who mentioned that the kustomize features were always intended to be there? I may have missed that, if it was public.

The document describing what kustomize should do and that looked at some other tools was started in mid-2017. Do you have tracability to the idea that overlays were meant to be there from the beginning? I ask because I'm honestly interested in reading that.

As far as people go, 1 of the 3 SIG Arch chairs has been around a long time. In addition to him I would want to poke at the co-founders on this one. Joe Beda and Craig McLuckie (2/3 of the K8s cofounders) started Heptio and they produced ksonnet (kubernetes + jsonnet which both came out of Google). This is different than the direction for kustomize.

Kubernetes has been declarative from the beginning. It's an important concept in all of this. Isn't declaring it to the API and then storing/creating objects outside the API separate concerns?

Back in 2017 Helm was a core part of Kubernetes as were projects like Komponse, that lets you convert Docker Compose files into Kubernetes manifests. Helm v2, which was part of Kubernetes, was the product of merging deployment manager, a Kubernetes project out of Google, and Helm v1, by Deis. Helm v2 began work before the CNCF existed. It was a part of Kubernetes back when it was governed by Google.

A history of tooling outside of the API had long been there.

To not have opinions outside the API to allow more diversity there, in 2017 we started treating Helm and Kompose like other ecosystem projects. We talked about not adding opinionated projects like this within Kubernetes anymore to keep the door open for the ecosystem and diversity there.

> Do you expect that the march toward kustomize inclusion will change after the kubectl usage data has been collected and analyzed?

I think it depends where the usage data comes from. Can we get real end user data? Or, will the feedback come from the Kubernetes insiders as has happened too often in the surveys? (I ran past surveys so I feel this pain) What will the data look like from large companies with bespoke processes and strong opinions on their toolchains?

I hope real useful data is collected? I would love data on more of the problem their facing.

Post reply on HN