Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

If security got to be the number one concern for whether things were deployed or not, then sure we could likely take a more conservative view.

However realistically k8s is in heavy deployment in a wide variety of industries including public sector, financial services, retail, technology ... and it's clear that this kind of concern is not the primary consideration.

There were banks in the UK (Monzo) deploying k8s almost 3 years ago (https://monzo.com/blog/2016/09/19/building-a-modern-bank-bac...)




The tradeoffs Monzo made are not ones that apply to most business. For most businesses, you have a profitable and sustainable model and you want to mitigate the possibility that you sink the ship by screwing the pooch on security or availability.

Monzo, on the other hand, was default-dead, so betting the farm on a relatively unproven technology perhaps wasn't risking as much. Nobody talks about the startups that used unproven tech and sank.


I don't think Monzo had to adopt k8s to survive. It's an infrastructure technology not something which provides a unique advantage from an app. development perspective.

Also k8s is far from only used in tech companies. the UK home office (not exactly a startup) were giving talks about their use of k8s in 2016 https://www.phpconference.co.uk/videos/2016/kubernetes-home-...


In most other industries, saying something is in "heavy development" is usually the same as "unstable". (Unstable usually is interpretted as Bad in software engineering -- but the dictionary definition of "unstable" only means "prone to change", which I think is an accurate characterization of k8s considering its degree of maturity)

Whether or not something is a smart choice to use in mission-critical production applications doesn't depend on the number of big banks or big tech companies that use the technology.

At the end of the day, Kubernetes is a tool that will change very rapidly over the next 5 years. I could see k8s being a decent choice to use in a tech project that you expect to actively maintain and improve for the next 5+ years, AND if you (and your developers) are willing to invest time (potentially a lot of time) every year keeping up to speed with how k8s evolves through every version release. That's the primary risk in using something like k8s.


Sure rapid development is likely to equal lots of change, but it's far from alone in that regard.

The last decade has been dominated by rapid adoption of technologies that were under heavy development at the time, from Ruby on Rails, to Node.JS to Golang to Rust.

The simple reality of modern IT is that companies are unwilling to wait until a technology has stabalized before making use of it.

Personally I'd rather they did, but my opinion has little weight in that regard.


And its clear with the number of data dumps online of personal information that this needs to change.

Good example is the recent offer for 147 million people to get 125 dollars out of a pool of 31 million ( Equifax )

As an industry IT is simply shamefully shoddy




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: