Our industry is fascinated with the origin stories of founders and the end of technology trends. In between, we seem fine with learning curves and technical debt.  

SHOW: 589

CLOUD NEWS OF THE WEEK - http://bit.ly/cloudcast-cnotw

CHECK OUT OUR NEW PODCAST - "CLOUDCAST BASICS"

SHOW SPONSORS:

• Teleport is the easiest, most secure way to access all your infrastructure 
• Get started with Teleport 
• CloudZero - Cloud Cost Intelligence for Engineering Teams
• Datadog Monitoring: Modern Monitoring and Analytics
• Start monitoring your infrastructure, applications, logs and security in one place with a free 14 day Datadog trial. Listeners of The Cloudcast will also receive a free Datadog T-shirt.

SHOW NOTES:

• As Kubernetes matures, the Edge needs containment (The Next Platform)
• Kubernetes Documentary - Part 1 (CNCF)
• Kubernetes Documentary - Part 2 (CNCF)
• 41% drop in views for Serverless training (O’Reilly)

WHEN ONE TECHNOLOGY ENDS, DOES ANOTHER TAKE ITS PLACE?

During a recent interview, I was asked “How close to complete is Kubernetes?”. We also saw a survey saying that less people are interested in Serverless (knowledge/training). Kubernetes is far from complete, and Serverless was supposed to be the next thing.   

WHY DO WE WORRY MORE ABOUT THE END OF A TECHNOLOGY AND LESS ABOUT TECHNICAL DEBT?

1. Is the technology media only interested in origin stories and ending stories?
2. Kubernetes is far from being complete, both as a project and the adjacencies around it. Why are we more interested in the end than in the middle (e.g. developer experience)?
3. Serverless was supposed to replace Kubernetes - why have we lost interest in Serverless?
4. Serverless didn’t have any “wars”, and it didn’t have any major startups or acquisitions (at least not yet)

FEEDBACK?

• Email: show at the cloudcast dot net
• Twitter: @thecloudcastnet