Isn't that wrongthink?
278 karma · joined July 31, 2020
Still many posts that make it to the top feel like commercial advertisement and I am pretty sure they use (their?) sock puppets to get the first upvotes to cheat the algorithm.
It's easy to create 20 accounts and just switch between them (and IP) when you do your normal HN procrastination to validate them and then get those initial 20 upvotes to go up to the top.
See the original comment you replied to, he is clearly complaining about the whole infrastructure and solutions getting too complex for very little benefit, I just elaborated on that point because there is some truth to it. It is not the case for your scenario handling billions of requests per day in multiple regions - that's where it makes a lot of sense to use k8s! But very few applications need that.
> It's a container and can be as thin or fat as you want with it's contents.
But you can't rely on the platform, except for the kernel because linux kernel ABI is stable hence why the containers are done in this way. I am not complaining about it, I am exaplning the reasoning. Now imagine if you could rely on and share more services provided by the platform that just the kernel ;).
> I don't care about the ABI and don't see why that's relevant
Fair enough but then I don't understand why you replied to my comment saying the containers are designed in this way because of unstable userpace ABI if you don't care about this.
> "I want my application to reliably and quickly serve my customers and be easy to maintain and debug." >> That's what K8S helps with
For certain solutions, absolutely! For other solutions a simple stateful applications is simpler and easier to maintain and debug (again, that's how I read the first comment in this thread).
This, the unbelievably biased treatment of this throughout the media and social media and good old qui bono tells me all I need to know.
Everything else is just technical details.
Because you are addicted.
I thought we were talking about running applications reliably. Why is complete linux userspace bundled separately in each container?
> Environments and languages change. Yes.
> That's entirely different to running programs with zero-downtime deployments, load-balancing and traffic management, health monitoring, logging and observability, secret and config management, storage volumes, security roles, and much more.
That's a lot of new requirements in addition to "running applications reliably". Most applications simply do not need that. And I believe this is the point of the original comment you replied to.
- zero-downtime deployments -> not needed for most applications (for example, twitter outages are not a big deal either). Btw how do you do zero-downtime of (websocket) streams with kubernetes? ;)
- load-balancing and traffic management -> in standard k8s you are pushing all traffic through one active LB (nginx) anyway => strip most of the extra layers and you dont even need that LB
- health monitoring, logging etc. -> you can use an existing solution that provides only the functionality you need, most of the work will be in your app anyway (every application needs different metrics ..)
The argument is that most applications do not need to scale at this level (until you need anycast DNS returning per-node IPs or at least geodns, you are not scaling that much anyway) and can be implemented in simpler manner hence easier and cheaper to maintain, audit and secure.
I do not want security roles, storage volumes and config management or observability I want my application to reliably and quickly serve my customers and be easy to maintain and debug.
If you want to discuss how to design architecture for scalable applications which keep all state in distributed databases but based on a platform with stable ABI that would surely be an interesting debate as well.
I can actually get behind no regulation for private companies, twitter can censor who they like as I can drive my favorite tank registered as my company vehicle and don't bother with taxes anymore.
Not complaining - If you want me to complain about IBM cluster technology that would be a whole different story.
And no I'm not gonna ask about disconnected clusters :).
To answer your question, I'm talking about Linux userspace ABI - you can't rely on ABI of essential libraries, openssl for example. That's why docker was born back then.
The comment I am replying to is complaining about Ubuntu calling home, IBM OpenShift is the same story.
Is it? I can take a program written for Windows 95 and run it on Windows 7 (maybe even newer) just fine and it will run reliable and efficiently and integrate better than containers.
It is problem only on Linux because user space ABI keeps breaking.
Notice that the containers run on the same linux kernel and not in VMs, why? Because "we do not break userspace!".
For starters, stop using Zoom and start using open protocols. Thank you.
- fake crypto (in reality it's CFD but they market it as crypto) (revolut)
- exchange rates worse than MasterCard for non-major currencies (revolut, just read their forums)
- blocking your account and requiring further documents (KYC, AML) if you want to access your money after you deposit more money
- exchange rates not public anymore (today exchange rates are accesible only to customer, not public) (revolut)
- no online banking, android/ios only
- when you start utlizing the cheaper services they actually provide you get harrased by the "compliance team" (because their are losing money so they can compete) (bunq, monese)
- low limits and when you reach your limit your account get be terminated (monese)
- no free API accessible to the customer (just some oauth api you can not use)
- expensive fees (transwap, ofx)
- horrible support
- no airgap security (think german PhotoTan or dutch ING scanner)
- expensive ATM withdrawals
And docker marketing has very effectively used that to their advantage.
On Linux you are going to run docker in VM anyway if you care a bit about security, but I know that almost all devs run docker directly on their laptops and with the user's full access to docker - ie. their user effectively becomes user. Without second thought ...