And managers are ok with keeping the team motivated, especially if they can deliver new features while playing with the new tech.

UPDATE: I mean, it's not about resume in most cases I've seen. Usually, people who don't love programming do not care about what tech to use, so resume-oriented people are usually not very vocal about using new cool and shiny tech. It's nerds who are, that keeps them motivated.

Linux is preety complex system too, you know, with millions lines of code and gazillion moving parts. It's probably safe to say that no one alive, including Linus himself, ever read all the codebase required for running a base linux system serving Apache with a static site. And yet we do.

Anyone who know how to code well can learn how to pack containers and run them within a kubernetes cluster in a way that will work reliably, even if those containers do nothing except serving pure html text files over port 80, and in fact the whole cluster is waste of money and it is not required and not helping a thing. It will serve the content just fine. No nukes will be hurt during the operation, don't worry.

If this is your criterium, sure. That's nice and simple and for much the same way that physics cows are perfectly spherical - this isn't how real life happens and I suspect you have enough life experience to know that this is the case.

Ironically your example is a good one, because tools like Kubernetes are what enables the proverbial cows of deploying services in heterogeneous clusters of COTS hardware to be interpreted as being spherical in the sense that they are only contained processes that execute somewhere.

And the irony is that you might seriously argue that being forced to waste time modeling cow in higher detail than a sphere is necessary or even required.

Your comment reads like stating "I am right and deep down you know that too", and that is less than pleasing.

However I have come to respect that many people are different. These are often the same people who insist on buying a new phone, never mind that they haven't understood a millionth of the old one yet.

The hammer will only suffice in the eyes of those who only envision problems that resemble nails.

But there's more to operations than occasionally hammering on a single nail.

So, if someone used k8s where it was not needed, that experience means zilch:

1) it was the wrong tool for the job

2) it was not used at the right scale. So, if I need k8s to manage a really large deployment, someone who used k8s to manage 5 machines does not have the right experience since they never used it at my scale.

Sadly today fewer and fewer companies look at soft and engineering skills and prefer to hire people based on experience with specific tools.

In other words, we have a systemic problem. If everyone does what the current system incentivizes, we get the wrong result.

There is "absolutely no reason" to use a system that automatically handles blue/green deployment of your containers for free and supporting auditable and revertible deployment histories?

I'd like to hear what you consider to be operational best practices!

And no, experience in cool buzzword tech does not count if it's a side project or open source contribution - as much as we would wish that to be the case.

We can blame developers, but they are just adapting, as humans always do, to their environment. Sometimes it is just bored devs chasing the next fad, but there is plenty of blame to be laid at the feet of modern tech companies.

Should I just wait a year for something that lets me use rancher without knowing anything about it?

And if you want to run a process, but you want to distribute the apps and run them as process containers, and you want to run them in an automatically configurable cluster of COTS computers communicating through a virtual private network...

Don't you understand where and why are there abstractions?

If anything, having people naively complain about how things are layered and abstracted is a testament of the huge success of the whole teck stack, because complainers formed such a simple mental model of how to distribute, configure, run, and operate collections of heterogeneous services communicating through a virtual network that they simply have no idea of the challenge of implementing a workable system that does half of this.

But with docker+kubernetes it only takes a click, so it must be trivial right?

I understand why abstractions exist, but the amount abstractions in the chain I mentioned is amusing to me.

I can understand the "kubernetes may not be the best engineering decision for your needs" argument, but that's a different argument from kubernetes is too complex.

This comment chain started with: "Having been at a company that was starting to move things to Kubernetes, when it had absolutely no reason to, I can say that it was being done because: 1) the developers wanted to be able to say they knew how to use Kubernetes... "

Someone responded by saying "For those companies i recommend rancher... It's kubernetes under the hood but a lot is stuff is abstracted away.."

So if you dont need Kubernetes, and are just using it to learn Kubernetes, you should throw an additional tool on top of Kubernetes, that abstracts away Kubernetes?

I'm sorry, that is amusing to me.

Some abstractions are necessary. Some aren't.

> Some abstractions are necessary. Some aren't.

It just seems bizarre to me that you can suggest that the abstraction is unnecessary when you also claim to have never used the tool. What makes you think it's unnecessary?

2. I didn't say it wasn't necessary. The poster of the parent comment did. I didn't work there, I don't know what was necessary. But it's safe to say, if you don't need Kubernetes (which the parent poster said, not me), then you don't need something to abstract Kubernetes (Rancher)...

And also, if I did know the environment, and the environment was incredibly simple, I don't think it's necessary for me to have Kubernetes experience to determine that it is not necessary... Sometimes a couple of VMs in different zones behind a load balancer is just fine...

And if you don't agree, you probably also think a static landing page requires React to be "done properly." How's that for inferring things you didn't say? I've never used React either, I guess I'll never know if I really need it for that landing page!

I do think that Kubernetes is overkill if you just want to spawn a couple of server instances. But if you want to build a complex system which scales and you happen to have experienced developers on the team who understand how to build scalable systems and who have experience with Kubernetes then you'd be foolish not to use K8s IMO.

That said, having that specific talent and experience on the team is critical or else you're just wasting your time and money with K8s - And that talent is very hard to find. There is no point building some complex architecture for Kubernetes if that architecture is not designed to scale linearly from the ground up.

Kubernetes can allow you to operate highly scalable systems easily and elegantly, but simply using Kubernetes doesn't itself guarantee in any way that your systems will be scalable and will benefit from K8s at all (aside from pretty UI). Very few people can build systems that scale and also meet business requirements.

And then you issued advice like "Don't do this". I'm curious if you truly believe that anybody in the above class of people would change their ways on that basis, and without a greater incentive.

It's not like using a tractor trailer to get your groceries, it's more like using a swiss army knife to cut a piece of string. Sure you don't need all the extra accessories for that task, but they're not really getting in your way, it's still a good tool for the job. And the extras might even come in handy at some point in the future.