• 0 Posts
  • 7 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 8th, 2023

help-circle

  • There is a lot of complexity and overhead involved in either system. But, the benefits of containerizing and using Kubernetes allow you to standardize a lot of other things with your applications. With Kubernetes, you can standardize your central logging, network monitoring, and much more. And from the developers perspective, they usually don’t even want to deal with VMs. You can run something Docker Desktop or Rancher Desktop on the developer system and that allows them to dev against a real, compliant k8s distro. Kubernetes is also explicitly declarative, something that OpenStack was having trouble being.

    So there are two swim lanes, as I see it: places that need to use VMs because they are using commercial software, which may or may not explicitly support OpenStack, and companies trying to support developers in which case the developers probably want a system that affords a faster path to production while meeting compliance requirements. OpenStack offered a path towards that later case, but Kubernetes came in and created an even better path.

    PS: I didn’t really answer your question”capable” question though. Technically, you can run a kubernetes cluster on top of OpenStack, so by definition Kubernetes offers a subset of the capabilities of OpenStack. But, it encapsulates the best subset for deploying and managing modern applications. Go look at some demos of ArgoCD, for example. Go look at Cilium and Tetragon for network and workload monitoring. Look at what Grafana and Loki are doing for logging/monitoring/instrumentation.

    Because OpenStack lets you deploy nearly anything (and believe me, I was slinging OVAs for anything back in the day) you will never get to that level of standardization of workloads that allows you to do those kind of things. By limiting what the platform can do, you can build really robust tooling around the things you need to do.



  • I think it’s worth saying that the head unit failing in this scenario is very disruptive for two reasons:

    First and foremost, the purpose of this journey in this car is to review the car. So if the head unit craps out, and he doesn’t make every effort to reboot it, and he mentions it in the review, he loses a lot of credibility from the users and industry folks. Could you imagine a review for a computer where it crashes or turns off, and the reviewer just says “welp, that’s all folks”?

    My second point is that he is navigating in an unfamiliar place to a charger for the car. If you’re coming from Tesla or AA/CarPlay, this is something you expect to work flawlessly. And it’s part of the review that’s worth discussing whether or not it works.

    In my opinion, even if he 100% knew where he was going, his behaviors are justified for a review.