[erulabs]

You've hit the nail on the head. Ten thousand simple, bespoke, hand-crafted tools have the same complexity as one tool with ten thousand facets. The real velocity gained is that this one tool with ten thousand facets is mass produced, and in use widely, with a large set of diverse users.

I don't know a single person who's been responsible for infra-as-code in chef/terriform/ansible who isn't more or less in love with Kubernetes (once they get over the learning curve). Everyone who says "it's too complex" bears a striking resemblance to those developers who happily throw code over the wall into production, where it's someone else's issue.

> Understandably, though, that would feel like a defeat to someone who truly enjoys building new systems from scratch (and we need those people).

Exactly. Building new systems from scratch is tons of fun! It's just not necessarily the right business move, unless the goal was to get the front-page of HN, that is.

[leetrout]

I'll take this bait:

Nomad is better for smaller teams and smaller companies with smaller problems than what k8s is for.

Helm is an abomination on top of it but that seems to be slowing down, thankfully.

[erulabs]

I've been using Nomad for about 5 months now, and couldn't disagree more. K8s is better documented, with far less glue, and far more new-hire developers are familiar with K8s compared to Nomad. Nomad-autoscaler alone is becoming a decent reason not to use Nomad. The number of abandoned issues on the various githubs is another. That Vault is a first-class citizen of K8s and a red-headed-stepchild of Nomad is another.

I do agree about Helm tho, I avoid it as much as possible.

[leetrout]

Fair enough, I don't know anything about nomad-autoscaler.