[toomuchtodo]

> Smart move of them to ship something and patch it up later if needed, they successfully defended against GKE’s assault and are vying to stay on top.

If you had to release a product to support the open source front runner, you did not successfully defend against it; you conceded after your tooling adoption failed.

As long as Kubernetes leads the way, lock in at any cloud provider is prevented (can even move back on-prem when the winds shift again). Kudos to Google for enabling that, but they have their own motives (ie disrupting AWS uptake).

[tyingq]

>As long as Kubernetes leads the way, lock in at any cloud provider is prevented

That might be a little strong. They still have lots of other proprietary offerings you might use along with K8S. Cloudwatch, various database services, Lambda, SQS, S3, etc.

[toomuchtodo]

Don’t rely on primitives without open alternatives unless you want to be chained to your vendor. Today it’s roasting Oracle during the keynote, tomorrow it’ll be today’s “underdog”. It’s easy to talk customer success when the money firehose flows.

MariaDB and PostgreSQL both work well outside of RDS.

[tyingq]

I suppose, but there's some stuff that's just hard to avoid. Like tooling to break down cloud costs, or network configuration, monitoring, provisioning block storage, etc. You can get to less lock-in, but it's hard to get to none.

Last I saw, "pets" like databases, were not optimal in K8S either. You can make it work, but it's higher effort.

[toomuchtodo]

I agree that more work is required on the K8S front. Vendor lock-in is a risk to insure against IMHO.

Disclaimer: I’m in risk management

[zenlikethat]

Kubernetes wasn't the front runner when ECS was released. Nobody knew what would happen. There was a distinct chance ECS could own everything, or Mesos, or Docker’s orchestration, or something else altogether.