> The machine is a beast and I can serve a lot of users with it. In fact, and quite funnily, I already serve much more users with it than a lot of my older clients do with their software running on expensive k8s setup because „scale“ :-)

Honestly even if you have a single server, running k8s (or maybe Docker Compose for really simple cases) on it is still the simplest way to manage it (assuming you have more than 1 service, anyway). One configuration file format, one CLI tool, zero special paths to memorize, no filesystem permissions to configure, pretty good security out of the box, access to a whole bunch of helm charts and operators (for example, cert-manager, external-dns, prometheus, alert-manager, some logging operator for centralized logging with a decent UI and search, and a postgres operator for backups / replication / failover), etc.

▲

ozgrakkurt 2 days ago | parent [-]

This depends on what you know. Kubernetes is really not that good for me

▲

throwaway894345 2 days ago | parent [-]

I don’t disagree. What you know matters, but I think it’s a lot easier to learn Kubernetes than it is to learn all of the disparate tools that you need to know to cobble together something similar. Moreover, because Kubernetes is somewhat standardized, you are much more likely to be able to find quality sources on the Internet (or LLLMs, nowadays) and similarly you’re much more likely to be able to find personnel who are familiar with it compared to some bespoke alternative.

It’s also worth noting that Kubernetes is conceptually quite simple—once you realize that it’s just a database of resources that are being watched by controllers, things start to click into place and it feels much simpler.

In some sense Kubernetes is a bit like democracy or capitalism—it’s the worst in its class except for everything else that has been tried. :)

▲

ozgrakkurt 2 days ago | parent [-]

Capitalism winning does not show it is better as there are a lot more factors.

Same situation with Kubernetes. Google could have built something else and they still would have succeeded at doing what they did.

In my opinion, everything you wrote are opinions. Installing and managing rke on bare metal was more difficult than doing the same with nomad for me.

Or another example, installing clickhouse using apt was easier and worked better than doing it with docker.

In the end we can do what we can do because we learnt the tool and the problem. And the tool is sufficient.

Argument about the quality of the tool is too difficult unless we know all discussed tools in-depth

	▲	throwaway894345 a day ago \| parent [-]
		> Capitalism winning does not show it is better as there are a lot more factors. ... Google could have built something else and they still would have succeeded at doing what they did. Maybe Google could have built something better than Kubernetes, but my point was that this doesn't do me any good. I can't _use_ the hypothetical better-than-Kubernetes product because it's hypothetical. So in the world of things that actually exist, Kubernetes is best in class despite the many valid criticisms of it. > In my opinion, everything you wrote are opinions Yes, my comment was my opinion. > Installing and managing rke on bare metal was more difficult than doing the same with nomad for me. Maybe Nomad is better. I haven't used it. I'm skeptical that it has the ecosystem breadth that Kubernetes has, but I'm happy to be wrong. > Or another example, installing clickhouse using apt was easier and worked better than doing it with docker. That's not really a useful comparison because (1) a system typically involves a lot more than just a singular database and (2) running a system involves a lot more than getting the software onto the machine. If you want to make a meaningful comparison, you need something like Ansible or Cloud Init to invoke apt and to wire everything together and at that point Kubernetes is _likely_ already easier. Especially when you consider logs, metrics, certificates, DNS, etc.