[michaellee8]

That famous tech called cgroup was actually a Google contribution. But I agree that k8s is essentially Google's step to make themselves relavant in Cloud. They have missed the initial opportunity by promoting their PaaS AppEngine instead of something IaaS like ec2 in the beginning of the cloud competition, so Google just play the open-source game and keep releasing stuffs that can be used in all three clouds to lure people to use GCP. But then k8s is a very nice piece of tech that allows one to manage large clusters without vendor lock-in.

[x86x87]

Cgroups, namespaces, apparmor/selinux, overlay filesystems, there is much more to containers than just cgroups.

The no vendor lock is looks great on paper but you are locked in day one. (Eg on aws you probably use IAM, LB, ASG for K8 Nodes - you can maybe move it to another cloud but the effort is going to be significant). Cloud agnosticism is a lie.

[vbezhenar]

Effort will be significant for any global changes for non-trivial software. Significant effort is fine. Can you compare moving something from AWS to GCP for Kubernetes and for something like Lambda+Fargate?

[mhoad]

I'd say not only is it a lie but is actively a not very good strategy to pursue right now, at least not all out as though you were pursuing some kind of multi-cloud end game.

At the K8s level, it seems like the introduction of the Gateway API is probably a good level of abstraction to work towards that will keep things about as flexible as possible without all of the insanity that comes with going beyond that to keep everything 100% vendor neutral.

[mhoad]

It's very strange some of the phrasing of this post. I don't know AWS and Azure that well so I might be off here but every time I look over into those ecosystems it's hard to not come to the conclusion that GCP is literally several years ahead in terms of what they are offering.

Even just sticking strictly to the K8s space, there is nothing even close to matching GKE standalone, let alone GKE autopilot that I am aware of. In the world of serverless the gap looks to be even bigger.

I couldn't imagine a situation where I would even consider something else in a greenfield project / company honestly.

[afiori]

I have seen it described as: "Google thinks that GCP technical superiority is self evident and so pushes a lot less in marketing/developer relations".

[rossmohax]

> That famous tech called cgroup was actually a Google contribution

At least some of namespaces were contributed by OpenVZ