| Just because a project has a larger budget, doesn't mean any of it should be spent on Docker, Docker Swarm, or Kubernetes or whatever other managers of Docker that you can mention here. Fact is, for 3 servers, it would be hard to convince me of any use of Docker compared to the aforementioned deployment shell script + Debian unattended-upgrades. What problem does Kubernetes address here? So what if it is "easy to use"? I prefer "not needed at all". > but also only works for a team of Adderall-chomping geniuses Of course, not everything should be implemented by yourself. Maybe this project wouldn't have been possible at all without offloading some complexity (like the convenient NodeJS packages). But in particular Docker and its ecosystem are only worth it when you have an amount of machines that make it worth it - when things become difficult to manage with a simple shell script everyone understands: when you have a lot of heterogeneous servers, or you want to deploy to the Cloud (aka Someone Else's Computers) and you have no SSH access. > truisms I don't have any experience with Kubernetes nor Docker Swarm. The reason is that the truisms have saved me from it. If you don't talk me into learning Kubernetes, I won't, unless a customer demands it explicitly. > Has it occurred to you that it losing money for a while might have contributed to its eventual unmaintainability It absolutely has. Maybe if the service hadn't used Docker Swarm or Docker at all, it would have lasted longer, since updating Docker would not have broken everything, since this was named a factor in the closure. And therefore, the time and money would have gone further. |