[zer00eyz]

>>> This seems a bit absurd on a number of fronts. It doesn't shape architecture that much, in my view; it runs your stuff.

I mean, let's be candid.

There are plenty of times where "containers" are bags of shit software that were pushing into production and throwing hardware at them to keep things going. There are containers out there with out of date libraries that aren't getting updated cause the "work" and no one gives a shit.

If you can get away with that, what is the incentive to do highly integrated engineering that produces diagonal scalability? Why be WhatsApp when you can just throw money at bad software?

[jauntywundrkind]

Containers can be a crutch for poor software maintenance, oh sure! Lots and lots of companies skate by with shoddy container infrastructure (often to relatively little ill impact imo). But I don't see much opportunity that is opened up by getting away from containers. One can do "highly integrated engineering that produces diagonal scalability" just as easily on containers as not, in my view. Containers don't inhibit much.

WhatsApp remains the glorious one example of ultra-efficient software. Way to go taking ejabberd+erlang and going far!! But does that path exclude Kubernetes? I doubt it. That architecture would have ran fine as containers or+and on Kubernetes. It wouldn't have made a material difference to what they were doing. It just would have been a different way to manage the underlying platform. Who knows, maybe it would have provided some patterns/templates/apiserver-ing that the team would have found useful to develop atop, to build forward on, that they instead had to build themselves?