Given that contributors have been referring to the kubernetes codebase as "the clusterfuck" in talks I think it's fine to say "shit".

https://archive.fosdem.org/2019/schedule/event/kubernetesclu...

It's a great talk to figure out how the kubernetes codebase works

This was 3 years ago and it even provides a solution in that talk already. Have you rechecked your assumption or are you only arguing from a talk from 2019?

Índependent of this, the abstraction layer (k8s api, kinds etc.) is independent of the code base btw. You can easily refactor and fix all issues in k8s. The abstraction is already there.

Hmm yes, but when Kris Nova says it it's different

Why? Our field is plagued by Authority Bias and this is one fine example.

“You should, in science, believe logic and arguments, carefully drawn, and not authorities.” [1]

[1] https://twitter.com/anammostarac/status/1495594139865731074

But that's exactly my point, Kris carefully draws her arguments. Which is what gives her her authority, not the other way around.

Thanks for the response. I knew of this talk, and had delved into the code base years ago. I did not want to deal with that specific issue in the article because it diverted from the main discussion. My assumption this was a known aspect of the code base, from that talk to the security review Kubernetes received. Obviously it not a known, when I roll out an update to the webpage I will link to that fosdem talk.

Even then there's arguably a stark contrast between

>The clusterfuck hidden in the Kubernetes code base and the brilliant refactoring techniques developed to fix it

and saying

>[...] forking a large code base, especially one as shit as Kubernetes, and still getting community support can be daunting without some sort of titanic change in the market.

especially since the former talks about techniques that fixed the "clusterfuck".

I know you didn't bring that talk into the discussion, however you didn't cite any sources at all. From my POV simply stating that the Kubernetes code base is "shit" without extending on it comes off as anything but neutral and fair.

If you want to sound reasonable, I would either make clear that that sentiment is your personal opinion and/or comes from your experience, or at least cite some sources.

I think it's fair to call it a clusterfuck with skin in the game.

Yeh I think I understand what you mean. The context is different when somebody says it as the perspective of a contributor. Then just a sideline comment without a 1 hour talk of context to contextualize the remark

Even then the talk is about a clusterfuck _within_ the code base and how it got fixed.

It clearly doesn't label the current state of the code base as a clusterfuck in general.

Agree with this. I've had to delve into the guts of Kubernetes and it's not perfect for sure but far better than the crap we deploy onto it :)

"Shit" is so commonly used in developer/tech circles that I'm more surprised someone would zero in and take issue with it. I would not question their credentials and reliability over a word.

> I would not question their credentials and reliability over a word

In more or less informal discussions, I agree. From my POV it's not about a singular word though, it's about the context: The author labelled the (entire) code base of Kubernetes as "shit":

>[...] forking a large code base, especially one as shit as Kubernetes, and still getting community support can be daunting without some sort of titanic change in the market.

It's not that it's not "nice" language, it's about the statement. It could very well be that the code base of Kubernetes is in a bad state, but with this wording and without any references, it doesn't come off as neutral or particularly reasonable.