mac-chaffee

That's really cool! I actually did download an archive of aol-sucks while researching this, but the software I was using to look through the mbox file was kinda buggy so I gave up. I'm literally the meme of the miner guy giving up right before hitting diamonds.

I welcome a k8s replacement! Just how there are better compilers and better databases than we had 10-20 years ago, we need better deployment methods. I just believe those better methods came from really understanding the compilers and databases that came before, rather than dismissing them out of hand.

Author here. Yes there were many times while writing this that I wanted to insert nuance, but couldn't without breaking the format too much.

I appreciate the wide range of interpretations! I don't necessarily think you should always move to k8s in those situations. I just want people to not dismiss k8s outright for being overly-complex without thinking too hard about it. "You will evolve towards analogues of those design ideas" is a good way to put it.

That's also how I interpreted the original post about compilers. The reader is stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that compilers have irreducible complexity. They think they can build something simpler, but end up rediscovering the same path that lead to the creation of compilers in the first place.

The use-case seems to be intentionally narrow:

> The Secrets Manager Agent provides compatibility for legacy applications that access secrets through an existing agent or that need caching for languages not supported through other solutions.

Each with a unique public IPv4 address too!

It's especially frustrating that I firmly believe operations is a solved problem, but good luck getting a company to adopt the practices that every other mature tech company has already figured out.