Relying on hidden complexity makes for a hard path ahead. You become bound by Docker's decisions to change in the future.
For example, SSLPing's reliance on a lot of complex software (among which NodeJS and Docker) got it to close, and it got on the front page of HN recently.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30985514
Keeping dependencies to a minimum will extend the useful lifespan of your software.
(Has it occurred to you that it losing money for a while might have contributed to its eventual unmaintainability, as the dev opted sensibly to work on more sustainably remunerative projects? If so, why ignore it? If not, why not?)
Similarly for the Node aspect - that's very much a corner use case related to this specific application (normally SSLv3 support is something you actively don't want!), and not something that can fairly be generalized into an indictment of Node overall. Not that it's a surprise to see anyone unjustly indict Node on the basis of an unsupportable generalization from a corner case! But that it's unsurprising constitutes no excuse.
Other than that you seem here to rely on truisms, with no apparent effort to demonstrate how they apply in the context of the argument at which you gesture. And even the truisms are misapplied! Avoiding dependencies for the sake of avoiding dependencies produces unmaintainable software because you and your team are responsible for every aspect of everything, and that can work for a team of Adderall-chomping geniuses, but also only works for a team of Adderall-chomping geniuses. Good for you if you can arrange that, but it's quite absurd to imagine that generalizes or scales.
Fact is, for 3 servers, it would be hard to convince me of any use of Docker compared to the aforementioned deployment shell script + Debian unattended-upgrades.
What problem does Kubernetes address here? So what if it is "easy to use"? I prefer "not needed at all".
> but also only works for a team of Adderall-chomping geniuses
Of course, not everything should be implemented by yourself. Maybe this project wouldn't have been possible at all without offloading some complexity (like the convenient NodeJS packages).
But in particular Docker and its ecosystem are only worth it when you have an amount of machines that make it worth it - when things become difficult to manage with a simple shell script everyone understands: when you have a lot of heterogeneous servers, or you want to deploy to the Cloud (aka Someone Else's Computers) and you have no SSH access.
> truisms
I don't have any experience with Kubernetes nor Docker Swarm. The reason is that the truisms have saved me from it. If you don't talk me into learning Kubernetes, I won't, unless a customer demands it explicitly.
> Has it occurred to you that it losing money for a while might have contributed to its eventual unmaintainability
It absolutely has. Maybe if the service hadn't used Docker Swarm or Docker at all, it would have lasted longer, since updating Docker would not have broken everything, since this was named a factor in the closure. And therefore, the time and money would have gone further.
> I don't have experience with Kubernetes nor Docker Swarm. The reason is that the truisms have saved me from it.
Have they, though? It seems to me they may have "saved" you from an opportunity to significantly simplify your life as a sysadmin. Sure, your deployment shell scripts are "simple" - what, a hundred lines? A couple hundred? You have to deal with different repos for different distros, I expect, adding repositories for deps that aren't in the distro repo, any number of weird edge cases - I started writing scripts like that in 2004, I have a pretty good sense of what "simple" means in the context where you're using it.
Meanwhile, my "simple" deployment scripts average about one line. Sure, sometimes I also have to write a Dockerfile if there isn't an image in the registry that exactly suits my use case. That's a couple dozen lines a few times a year, and I only have to think about dependencies when it comes time to audit and maybe update them. And sure, it took me a couple months of intensive study to get up to speed on Docker - in exchange for which, the time I now spend thinking about deployments is a more or less infinitesimal part of the time I spend on the projects where I use Docker.
Kubernetes took a little longer, and manifests take a little more work, but the same pattern holds. And in both cases, it's not only my experience on which I have to rely - I've worked most of the last decade in organizations with dozens of engineers working on shared codebases, and the pattern holds for everyone.
I don't know, I suppose. Maybe there's another way for twenty or so people to support a billion or so in ARR, shipping new features all the while, without most months breaking a sweat. If so, I'd love to know about it. In the meantime, I'll keep using those same tools for my single-target, single-container or single-pod stuff, because they're really not that hard to learn, and quite easy to use once you know how. And too, maybe it's worth your while to learn just a little bit about these tools you so volubly dislike - if nothing else, in so doing you may find yourself better able to inform your objections.
All that said, and faint praise indeed at this point, but on this one point we're in accord:
> If you don't talk me into learning Kubernetes, I won't, unless a customer demands it explicitly.
I did initially learn Docker and k8s because a customer demanded it - more to the point, I went to work places that used them, and because the pay was much better there I considered the effort initially worth my while. That's paid off enormously for me, because the skills are much in demand; past a certain point, it's so much easier to scale with k8s especially that you're leaving money on the table if you don't use it - we'd have needed 200 people, not 20, to support that revenue in an older style, and even then we'd have struggled.
I still think it's likely worth your while to take the trouble, for the same reasons I find it to have been worth mine. But extrinsic motivation can be a powerful factor for sure. I suppose, if anything, I'd exhort you at least not to actively flee these technologies that you know next to nothing about.
Sure, you might investigate them and find you still dislike them - but, one engineer to another, I hope you'll consider the possibility that you might investigate them and find that you don't.
