IMO this is what keeps people from building systems that might challenge kubernetes. Everyone wants to say Kuberentes is too complex, so we built something that does much less. I respect that! But I think it usually fails to grok what Kubernetes is and why it's such an interesting and vital rallying point, that's so thoroughly captured our systems-making. Let's look at the premise:

> That’s why I like to think of Kubernetes as a runtime for declarative infrastructure with a type system.

You can go build a simple way to deploy containers or ship apps: but you are missing what I think allows Kubernetes to be such a big tent, thats a core useful platform for so many. Kubernetes works the same for all types, for everything you want to manage. It's the same desired state management + autonomic systems patterns, whatever you are doing. An extensible platform with a very simple common core.

There are other takes and other tries, but managing desired state for any kind of type is a huge win that allows many people to find their own uses for kube, that is absolutely the cornerstone to it's popularity.

If you do want less, the one project I'd point to that is kubernetes without the kubernetes complexity is KCP. It's just the control plane. It doesn't do anything at all. This to me is much simpler. It's not finding a narrowly defined use case to focus on, it's distilling out the general system into it's simplest parts. Rebuilding a good simple bespoke app container launching platform around KCP would be doable, and maintain the overarching principles that make Kube actually interesting.

I seriously think there is something deeply rotten with our striving for simplicity. I know we've all been burned, and there's so often we want to throw up our hands, and I get it. But the way out is through. I'd rather dance the dance & try to scout for better further futures, than reject & try to walk back.