Binary distribution, versioning and checksumming shouldn't need to be coupled to a particular format.
Obviously docker solves a bunch of disparate problems. That's kind of the objection.
Static binaries are great but they don't solve every problem and they do to have to.
The vast majority of usecases don't need kubernetes, that's fine too.
You don't have to bash kubernetes because you don't specifically need it for your one use case.
There are plenty of other perfectly valid reasons to bash that dogpile.
Not clear what is meant by this. Can you elaborate?
> You don't have to bash kubernetes because you don't specifically need it for your one use case.
It is the platform teams at my employer deploy to, and with good reason. I think we do need it for our use case. But there are ways it could be improved, and the ability to deploy a simple Linux binary feels like one.
Also, how will you distribute this static binary? How do you check that the result of a download is the specified version, and the same that others are downloading? How will you specify its name and version?
By the time you have addressed all of these, you will have re-implemented the vast majority of what standard container definitions and registries do.