[yjftsjthsd-h]

> That's more of a "I don't know what I'm doing" story, isn't it?

Sure, but k8s is big enough that "very few people know what they're doing" is a valid argument. It's loosely like saying that git sucks because the technology is solid but it's extremely complex and hard to get a grasp on.

[jeffbee]

I don't think the ergonomics of k8s are anywhere near as bad as those of git. I think the perception of k8s as complex and confusing is promulgated by people who already don't understand how their process starts and runs on any given Linux box without container orchestration. Naturally these people are overwhelmed by adding k8s on top.

The article to which I linked describes itself as "a wild ride of discovery" but all that has been discovered is basic aspects of the Linux process scheduler. The author could have skipped the wild ride if they had understood Linux first.

[p_l]

Add to this conspicuous lack of good bottom-up description of how things mesh together, and suddenly instead of having complex system built out of simple parts people face complex system built of magic. It's a credit to k8s that you can trudge forward in the second case, but I'm too divorced from "k8s newbie" to reliably check what's the current "newbie introduction" :/

[the_af]

I cannot speak for the article you linked to, but the Zalando guys (from the "failure stories" talk) seem pretty experienced and do seem to know what they are speaking about...