> I've personally changed my opinion on this in the last ~2 years ... observing at work what it takes for people to stand up and manage a Kubernetes platform it really just feels like incredible waste that we have hundreds and thousands of SREs across our industry all building their own unique compute platforms when the public cloud vendors have already done that work.

I wasn’t suggesting standing up K8s from scratch, but rather extending GKE or EKS or similar with things like cert-manager snd external DNS.

I was skeptical coming from a shop that was deeply invested in AWS and serverless, but Kubernetes has a lot less friction and the abstractions can be pretty high level. For example, we can create a service with HTTPS, fully managed certificates, reverse proxy, and DNS just by creating an ingress resource for that service. It’s a lot nicer than cobbling together ACM, Route 53, API Gateway, etc (even though I have plenty of experience with the latter). A lot of this is possible because Kubernetes is extensible and there’s a big ecosystem for it. AWS isn’t (particularly) extensible, so you end up depending on them to support your use case. When you have a competent SRE team managing your platform and providing high level abstractions, Kubernetes kind of feels like what serverless promised to be—much more so than AWS’s serverless offerings (and I still like AWS!).

Managed Kubernetes is the serverless paradigm, done right I find.

Kubernetes is hard because it needs to be hard, stateful machines are stateful because they have to be stateful.

Managed Kubernetes is the compromise between vendors desire for vendor lock-in, and customers wanting a standardized interface for serverless applications.