I find each new development in the field of deploying Kubernetes to be grimly humorous. We had lots of techniques to package and deploy things before Kubernetes, but they were complex and inadequate in some ways, and Kubernetes fixes some of those issues. But it turns out Kubernetes itself is substantially more complicated to package and deploy than the old solutions, if you're deploying it yourself rather than using…
> We had lots of techniques to package and deploy things before Kubernetes, but they were complex and inadequate in some ways They worked very well for 30 years. And the new container-based tools inevitably end up doing the same mistakes, rediscovering the same solutions and we'll go back to the beginning. > turns out Kubernetes itself is substantially more complicated to package and deploy than the old solutions Exa…
Sure you can. A resource scheduler is more complex than not having one, but it solves the single-point-of-failure problem and the bin-packing CPU+memory problem.
A more complex infrastructure means you can have dumber apps.
And there are lots of areas where this is true: TCP is a complex protocol which makes it easier to build reliable communication, CPUs have complex caches which make simple code faster, RAID makes multiple disks behave like a single disk to improve reliability or performance, compression is very complex (esp for audio/video) but dramatically reduces the size...
The implementation of kubernetes may be flawed, but the idea of kubernetes makes a lot of sense. It solves real problems.