[diminoten]

Refusing to adopt innovation because it doesn't match with what you knew when you were a technical contributor is risky, too.

Sticking to Python2 is risky. Using a version of Postgres released 5 years ago (9.3) is risky, using legacy PHP is risky, relying on the JVM and Java developers to solve problems that other tech stacks solve faster/better is risky.

What you call a sustainable business with amortized costs I call an un-turnable ship that wastes money dealing with problems that were solved years ago.

[toomuchtodo]

I think you misunderstand. I am not refusing to adopt innovation. I'm refusing to be underpaid to "innovate". If you want to spend sleepless nights troubleshooting beta software in production, it is not my place to stop you. It is my place to not recommend said software to businesses, and this is extremely easy to demonstrate to decision makers.

If you do recommend software to a business that isn't proven (and Kubernetes is still very much unproven, it's first release was only 3 years ago), and it fails, you should be accountable for your poor judgement.

[diminoten]

The only misunderstanding that's taking place here is how unproven you think the tech being discussed is.

No one is suggesting you spend sleepless nights troubleshooting beta software in production.

K8s is not beta software, and the fact that you have to misrepresent my position as such is a pretty good indicator that you don't find my actual position (use solid software even if it's new, as long as it's solid, which k8s is) to be objectionable. I wish you'd start there...

[toomuchtodo]

We disagree k8s is solid, so no further discussion is necessary.

You questioned the maturity of an IRC client that was only 3 years old [1]. But that's enough time for Kubernetes to be a mature orchestration framework, to be relied upon as critical infrastructure? Yes, more development resources have been committed to Kubernetes, but that does not make it solid.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18408813

[diminoten]

I questioned (misleading word, I did genuinely question as in I was unsure, not question as in demonstrate skepticism) the IRC client's maturity with a ton of caveats about myself and my admitted paranoia in this specific area.

And yes, they're two completely different pieces of technology with two completely different sets of eyeballs on them. 3 years for k8s is not the same as 3 years for an IRC client.

> Yes, more development resources have been committed to Kubernetes, but that does not make it solid.

It's a strong indicator of stability, and pretending like it's not kind of tips your hand here, I think.

Do you honestly think the two are even remotely comparable?

[toomuchtodo]

I question why you push an immature technology so hard in a public forum, that is all.

[diminoten]

And I question why you care more about going home at the end of the day than delivering the best product to your clients.

If you think I'm affiliated in any way with Kubernetes, you can look into that. I've tied my account on HN to my identity, I'm entirely Googleable.

Also, we're arguing about whether or not it's immature, what you just wrote is textbook begging the question. :/

[diminoten]

For the people reading this who might be on the fence about k8s and its "solidness", keep in mind that hostility like what's being shown here is exactly the kind of thing that holds good tech back. Don't fall for this evidence-less claim, look at what people are accomplishing and the issues they're running into.

Find the positivity about the tech, and see what those people have trouble with. Tons of case studies to demonstrate, resoundingly, that k8s is "solid": https://kubernetes.io/case-studies/ . See what these people struggled with, and that'll give you a better idea of who's right here.