Seems like a mistake to me. Microsoft recently adopted one of my Open Source projects and part of the agreement was they would keep the original license. This was a request on their part, I had no choice in the matter. They know what they're doing, I don't think they would do this deliberately. (Licence here: https://github.com/microsoft/vscode-gradle/blob/main/LICENSE...)
My anti-kubernetes setup for small single servers is docker swarm, portainer & traefik. It's a setup that works well on low powered machines, gives you TLS (letsencrypt) and traefik takes care of the complicated network routing.
What does Nomad do for you, exactly? I've always wanted to try it out, but I never really got how it works. It runs containers, right? Does it also do networking, volumes, and the other things Compose does?
What I like about Nomad is that it allows scheduling non-containerized workloads too. What it "does" for me is that it gives me a declarative language to specify the workloads, has a nice web UI to keep track of the workloads and allows such handy features as looking at the logs or exec'ing into the container from the web UI, amongst other things. Haven't used advanced networking or volumes yet though.
There's different kind of workloads, I use Docker containers the most, but jobs can also run on a system-level, there's also different types of operating modes, some jobs can be scheduled like cron, where other jobs just exposes a port and wants to be registered in Consuls service-mesh.
A job can also consist of multiple subtasks, an example could be nginx + django/rails subtasks that will be deployed together.
This is exactly how I deployed my last few projects, and it works great!
The only things I'd change are switching to Caddy instead of Traefik (because Traefik 2.x config is just so bewilderingly complex!), and I'm not convinced Portainer is really adding any value.
Agree the traefik config is a little complex but otherwise it works great for me. About using portainer, it's useful for showing a holistic view of your containers and stacks, but I also use it for remote deployment of services (Eg as part of CI/CD). I'll push a new docker image version then I'll use the portainer webhooks to redeploy the service, then docker swarm takes over.
Absolutely agree, I switched to Caddy recently and the configuration is considerably easier than Traefik. Very simple TLS setup (including self signed certificates).
After some struggle I've managed to set up traefik with tags/docker socket so that services can "expose themselves" via tags in their service definitions - is there anything similar for caddy?
My problem is in the two to eight server space, but networking is already externally managed and I have a loadbalancer. It’s in this space I feel that we’re lacking good solution. The size is to small to justify taking out nodes for a control plane, but big enough that Ansible feels weird.
I run k3s on a single node. Used to be two, but I consolidated because this isn't a production usecase for me.
Availability isn't the point for me. If I have to turn the thing off for an hour ever year or two to fix something, sure, fine.
The real value I get is Infra as Code, and having access to the same powerful tools that are standard everywhere else.
I can drop my current (dedicated) hardware and go publish all my services on a new box in under an hour, which I did recently.
From my point of view, I already pay the complexity by virtue of k8s being The Standard. The two costs of complexity are 1) Learning the Damn Thing 2) Picking up the pieces when it breaks under its own weight.
1) I already pay regardless, and 2) I'm happy to pay for the flexibility I get in return.
Both k3s and MicroK8s support single node and multi node setups. Now, there's an open debate whether running K8s locally is the right approach for container development. Kelsey Hightower and James Strachan actually shared opposite opinions on this in a recent industry report published by Canonical. https://juju.is/cloud-native-kubernetes-usage-report-2021#ku...
This is the approach I use, but I've always found some sort of issue in every generator I use. A valid openapi spec does not imply a generator will be able to handle it. You'd think have a specification would mean the generators are "bug free" but it's not the case, and bug reports are lost in a sea of issues: https://github.com/OpenAPITools/openapi-generator/issues so i don't see things improving anytime soon.
I've also wondered if the "logic-less" template approach is the right approach for these generators. You can't fix bugs or add workarounds just by providing a custom template, you need to change the underlying Java code to provide the correct data models to the logic-less templates.
Some of these are multi-liners that can be converted to one-liners. For example I believe "npx" can be used for all the node examples for example "npx http-server -p 6007 ./root"
[edit] ahh i see this is called out in the gist comments
Maybe the author doesn't want community engagement in the way that you want it. You decide how to manage your projects; allow others to decide what will best help them maintain their sanity.
