adgasf

The v1 / v2 split was arguably Apple's fault. v1 launched before Homekit; then Homekit required special hardware authentication; then v2 launched to support this; then Apple walked back on the special hardware and allowed things to be done in software, but Philips had already made breaking changes for v2.

Again, Philips made the wrong call here.

So if Kubernetes makes management simpler and more robust for teams of 500+, but is overly complex for teams of 5, what solution would people recommend for teams of 5?

AFAIK the bulbs are compatible with v1 and v2 hubs, so the bulbs do not need to be replaced. The v1 hubs will continue to work across a local area network. Philips offered a heavily discounted upgrade for v1 hub users to get a new v2 hub.

However, I still think they should support the v1 hubs for the lifespan of a typical bulb (15 years), at minimum.

Google keeps Chrome around because the alternative is just too risky for their core business. If (for example) everyone used IE then Microsoft would be able to shut out Google's ads.

Google Docs solves the 95% case of version-control simply by bringing everyone to the head of master at all times.

Agreed! and the approach to operator overloading is much more pragmatic.

Conversely, it's also one of the biggest pain-points when throwing together a quick prototype.

Aren't most people running a load-balancer in front nowadays?

If the key is not evidence then how can they prove that they got the incriminating files from the encrypted drive?

MS gave Nokia 1 billion usd

If the differences are only minor then what does it enable that the more popular alternative does not?

You're right the familiarity is a good thing though - just look at TypeScript!

This doesn't look sufficiently different to JavaScript with JSX.

> Why do you think it's not a good practice?

I didn't say it wasn't. Docker makes sense because everyone uses it.

However, I would prefer a Docker alternative that is purely local and doesn't require so many permissions.

> it doesn't even solve the problem because dependencies are just downloaded from the package manager.

The advantage of Docker is that you can verify the container works locally as part of the build process rather than finding out it is broken due to some missing dep after a deployment. If you can verify that the image works then the mechanism for fetching the deps can be as scrappy as you like. Docker moves the dependency challenge from deployment-time to build-time.