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. :)

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