Good to know. When I ask if a technology is worth leanring, I always
assume it's perfect. I was also relieved to discover a new platform
might but also might not surface to overtake K8s.
Keeping the complexity aside - which is always a decent motivator for new platforms - I feel a significant amount of technical and financial investment has been made in Kubernetes over the last few years. So when a community like the CNCF comes together and says okay, where do we go from here, I don’t think anybody says let’s ditch all we’ve done so far for a new platform that may never happen. Their focus ends up trying to either extend what we have already - which, let’s be fair, does actually work - or they look for ways to make using Kubernetes slightly easier.
Saying “it isn’t perfect” usually means something has fairly fundamental flaws that make it uncomfortable to use; and can simultaneously imply that it’s among the best we’ve got.
Almost certainly something will replace it or make it far more reliable, understandable, and ergonomic over time.
I’m sorry you found my earlier response vacuous. The point I was trying to make is that K8s is the best shot we have, and I wanted to underline the possible bias I may have. I’m sure someone must have found what I said worth their time, just as someone won’t.