[streetcat1]

Sure. So I do agree that kubernetes was developed to solve GCP market share issue. I do not think that anybody think otherwise. I just not sure why this is a bad thing. I.e. why do you care why kubernetes was developed, vs the actual merit of the product.

2. When I refer to community first, I mean that the product was rushed to market, half baked, and than was iterated in the market. I think that Google worked with redhat on the initial API (I.e. deployment object came from redhat)

Regarding AWS, AWS does not have 5% of the global IT market, of course it have 40% of the global cloud market, but not the IT market. Also, the usage of AWS or any other cloud for that matter, is very skewed, I.e. 63% percent of the customer have one S3 bucket, or one EC2 node.

My point about open stack is reflecting your point about VMWARE / IBM. I.e. kubernetes will end up maintained by companies that sell multi cloud/on prem solution.

Overall, I believe that kubernetes is the only way the IT world can decrease the power of the big 3 cloud providers(I cannot see any other option at this scale), hence usage should be encouraged.

[jasonrichardsmi]

I think the design behind Kubernetes served one purpose, normalize people's workloads. Not to reach Uber or Netflix scale. That is important in the context of the history, and I care because I don't think it is a very good product, because of this very reason.

It was definitely rushed to market, they say it in the video, and all the major players in the ecosystem, IBM, Redhat, Google, and VmWare, all wanted a piece of that pie, because all of them were barely treading water.

I don't think that is how market share is measured.

I am not sure how you decrease the power of the big 3 like this. Kubernetes does not solve that issue. I agree it is an admirable ambition, but I think you would have better luck trying to regulate them like utilities.