Looks really interesting, especially with the dashboards.
Just to validate an idea here:
I’m using k8s (20+ services) and trying to stick to the 12factor design pattern by having all the baking/companion services, also like cron jobs deployed from within the service directory. Right now I’m using k8s cron services for cron jobs and log the steps and observe with DataDog. Using k8s cron services feels right somehow but the observability with DataDog not. So, would it make sense for me, to deploy a baking k8s web service running sidequest instead?
Well, Sidequest comes with a comprehensive built-in dashboard that provides real-time monitoring, job management, and performance analytics, so there's that.
You can probably deploy Sidequest a job processor for all your 20+ services. Each service can enqueue the jobs and you can run as many machines as you want with Sidequest just to run the jobs. You maintain the 12-factor principle - your services remain stateless and delegate scheduled work to Sidequest.
The only requirement here is that the scripts to be executed must be in the same path in all machines. As long as you follow that, you can deploy it and run your jobs :)
I’ve tried to order Oriana Fallacis The Rage and the Pride 2 years ago on Amazon (Germany). No chance to get it … felt to me like censorship back then.
I would assume their thought is, that it limits their creative spirit and in general is too technical. But they start (as 2 people teams) on figma a complete own design lib with a lot of variables and custom components which look the same like any other lib.
Tobacco is actually more addictive than weed. I have a friend in Berlin who substituted tobacco for some herbal mix some years ago. He was a heavy smoker until then. Basically he just kept on smoking but swapped out the tobacco. A few weeks in he realized he didn't need to any more. It, smells a bit unpleasant but it got him completely off the tobacco with essentially zero effort. He rolls like one or two a day max. Usually with some weed and a beer on the side.
I don't smoke myself (tobacco or weed) but I know plenty of people who do, or who used to (multiple packs a day, like my friend above). Quitting is hard apparently. So, from that to one or two per day sounds like it should be an improvement.
The nastiest thing with weed is having to deal with drug dealers to get it. Bringing it out of the criminal corner is a good thing. There are a lot of drug dealers who also sell far nastier stuff than weed. Crack cocaine apparently is a growing problem in Berlin.
The «master» to «main» change was totally unnecessary and B.S. imho.
Even 15 years ago, when I started my professional journey (in Germany) there were a lot of people who were gay, trans and so on in the dev community … and nobody cared about it. We were all passioned about technologies and respected each other based on commitment/engagement/skill level. At the end most of the true full blood developers were always «special» and knew since their childhood that they were different from other children. I think that’s the reason why the embarrassment level was pretty low and people just wore the stuff they wanted, behaved like they wanted eg.
But of course that’s only my personal experience. I’m sure there are a lot of other stories out there to share.
As a black person, the switch from master to main, is the most condescendingly racist thing that has been widely adopted in tech. It says "black people are too stupid to understand context. We (small group of white people) must protect them against words."
Another thing it does, is that it promotes the identification of blacks as slaves when all races have been enslaved (and continue to this day).
Based on how uppity about it around the time the whites I talked to about it were, yes it was 100% this.
The high horse riding was surreal. They all took long savouring draws of their own farts after each 'master' branch they renamed to 'main'.
When I mentioned that none of the people they did this in the name of were helped, they met it with abject hostility. Narcissism is a hell of a condition.
edit:
It also reminds me of men playing feminist and stepping (aggressively) up to protect women’s rights. I heard from my female colleagues that they hate this since it implies that women are like children and aren’t able or mature enough to speak up for themselves. So the «strong men» need now to protect them…
The “white saviour” complex is well documented. Well-meaning but racist in their ignorance white people try to save people based on racist stereotypes and caricatures of imagined problems.
Hey, maybe the white dude feels icky about the master/slave thing. Maybe it's not about the opinions of black people but words we want in common usage in our societies.
Is the intent to completely remove the terms? That's a new angle I hadn't heard. I guess it makes said guilty feeling persons life easier, as they can't hear about the currently happening slavery in the world and can continue on their merry way.
The point is to correlate the word slavery with the concept of human slavery only. Disallowing a word to be used outside that usage is better for everyone.
Why should non-racist white people feel guilty over the actions of other people simply because they have the same skin colour?
I do think we need to be aware of and oppose racism, but I cannot understand this attitude. It actually seems a bit... racist, even if well intentioned.
> I’m honestly a bit shocked at the reactionary nature of this entire thread. I knew HN had a bunch of conservative and libertarian tech bros but…holy shit. This whole thread is unhinged.
I am not from the US. I am not white. I am typically in the left (to what's considered left in the countries I lived in). And I really dislike all the political correctness that seeped into tech, and generally comes from the US.
All the jargon tiptoeing is extremely condescending, as if non-white people are too moronic and/or weak-minded to understand that words have different meanings in different contexts.
And, no, thinking that does not make me reactionary and/or libertarian. The very much American behavior of pointing fingers at any minor thing and scream "Racist" will not define my political leanings.
To be clear, I’m only talking about the US. I don’t care what other countries do with their terminology. If they’re using “master/slave,” they’re already borrowing our terminology that came from an American. What’s so hard about borrowing again?
What I do know is that my Black team member is offended by master/slave terminology. Maybe their grandparents had a grandparent who was enslaved, and they don’t want to be reminded of that past every day at work. Their parents grew up in segregated schools with segregated bathrooms and water fountains. That experience is very much in living memory. It wasn’t that long ago in the grand scheme of things.
That’s more than enough for me to not use that terminology anymore.
This isn’t about political correctness, it’s about basic respect and empathy for other people.
I would argue that the US has unique racial tensions and that racism is deeply embedded within its system. Maybe if you live in a homogeneous culture racism doesn’t become so much of a problem. Not the case in the US.
That’s probably why in your perspective Americans can’t stop bringing up racism, because it’s such a pervasive issue in our society. There aren’t many other countries that have experienced anywhere near as much demographic change via immigration as the US.
> This isn’t about political correctness, it’s about basic respect and empathy for other people.
This is what it ultimately comes down to. Unfortunately, a large segment of our population doesn't value basic respect and empathy, and we end up with this current (ridiculous) 100+ comment thread.
My buddy goes by a nickname because he was originally named after his abusive father and he'd rather not be reminded of the guy. I have two choices: 1. I could insist on calling him by his original name using excuses like "Well, that's technically your name" and "I have the free speech right to call you by that name" and "I think changing one's name is dumb" and "Why should I lift a finger" and "You can’t force me to..." and blah blah blah, or 2. I can simply respect his wishes and call him by his preferred nickname.
Option 2 doesn't cost me anything, causes zero drama, and makes everything better. It's a no-brainer. Yet vast swaths of America seem to stubbornly want to go with option 1, on this and many similar issues, resulting in unnecessary fighting, grief, drama, protests, counter-protests, pain, suffering... all because they lack empathy.
I agree with the most part of what you wrote and I don't want to turn this even more into an unconstructive flame war than it already is.
I just wanted to reply on the following point:
> I knew HN had a bunch of conservative and libertarian tech bros but…holy shit. This whole thread is unhinged.
Many people on that thread seem to not be american so thinking of them through a US political lens may not be pertinent - the politically-loaded, US-centric, source of the change may also be the source of the frustration with it in the first place (see the bottom of this reply).
Just on this point, I consider myself left-leaning (and from what I can see, US democrats would mostly be at the center - and Biden center-right - of the political spectrum in my country), yet I share the point of view of the other commenters regarding the "master" change and the ways it is pushed.
> In what universe is master/slave not racist
For the "master" part at least, I would say most people do not link it to slavery because most people are not from an english-speaking country.
For me, when I read master I may just think about master recordings. That does not mean that it may or may not have a racism-linked origin (I have no idea about that) but understand that many people around the world don't do the connection. Then, as it is mostly US people that push for other to change that name vehemently, this make many people think that those are americans that want to push their current political ideology down someone else's throat (which has a completely different cultural and political background) and may elicit a strong response.
I’m speaking purely from the context of the US, and I wouldn’t want to shove our terminology down anyone else’s throat. That said, the US does drive a lot of software culture since it’s the industry epicenter, so I guess it’s unavoidable at some point.
Maybe I could have used less politically-charged language, but in my eyes it was necessary to surface the connection. I think that in the US, a very specific political group rallies around opposition to social justice, and that group has a tendency to try and hide their underlying motivations (e.g., using dogwhistling).
> I think that in the US, a very specific political group rallies around opposition to social justice, and that group has a tendency to try and hide their underlying motivations (e.g., using dogwhistling).
Talk about dog whistling! Why don’t you actually say what you mean: “I think people who disagree with my beliefs are unworthy and their opinions don’t count.”
You’re basically headed straight to the tolerance paradox.
If you disagree with my desire to not harm others, the inverse is that you want to harm others. No, that opinion doesn’t count, and is unworthy. My intolerance of that opinion is not hypocrisy.
This has nothing to do with the tolerance paradox.
The comment tried to smear opponents of the social justice movement as dog-whistling bigots. But the social justice movement is not, in many people’s very legitimate opinions, the right way to achieve fairness. It also doesn’t enjoy the kind of broad consensus its proponents like to pretend they have.
It’s not literal guilt like in a criminal trial, it’s a collective responsibility.
“White guilt is a belief that white people bear a collective responsibility for the harm which has resulted from historical or current racist treatment of people belonging to other racial groups” (Wikipedia)
Here’s an analogy: if I see litter on the ground in my neighborhood, I’m not guilty of littering. But if I willfully ignore it and downplay it, rather than putting in extra effort to pick it up, my neighborhood will still have litter.
On your litter analogy: I might be taking advantage of policies that have trash pickup on my street but don’t pickup trash on the other side of the tracks for “reasons”
> I’m honestly a bit shocked at the reactionary nature of this entire thread. I knew HN had a bunch of conservative and libertarian tech bros but…holy shit. This whole thread is unhinged.
It's shocking indeed. I'm not sure "reactionary" is a fitting description. Refusing even to extend the faintest hints of common courtesy while being fully aware of the racist and bigoted connotations of using certain terms is something that even goes beyond basic manners.
All the downvoted being dumped on messages that point out this fact is even more concerning. These are basic principles of living in a civilized society. Is that out of fashion?
you see, this is the gift of American progressive cultural imperialism.
Suddenly, the only historiography that can exist in the world is that of American trustafarians who try to minimize their shame of being born wealthy heirs of the slave-owner class by spreading the shame on white immigrants that arrived way after slavery got disbanded.
And once you set the precedence that you can at will shame innocent people - the majority of white Americans - into obedience even though it’s technically impossible that their ancestors had anything to do with slavery… well then why stop at Americans at all?
Now its every European country and culture that has to subvert itself to the viewpoint of Ivy league grads.
Brownfacing, Blackfacing, minstrelshows, Kuklux you name it - it doesn’t matter what Poles could possibly have to do with it, or Germans or Swedes - you are all guilty by being born white.
I'd say at least some Europeans have their own guilt to deal with, if we're saying the sins of the parents should be visited on the children... Not like the US has a monopoly on terrible history
> if we're saying the sins of the parents should be visited on the children
I’d say this is the binary option we routinely fail to make the right choice.
> renaming master branches/HDDs to main because of rAciSm
Sticking to OP‘s topic its just ridiculous to have such a discussion in Europe because we are supposedly to feel guilty about what other people did to African Americans.
Lest for the majority of US slaves well into the 1700s were European catholics, or that much of European borders and coasts were routinely raided in the hunt for white slaves (Cornwall, Ireland, Russia…)
As a Brit at least, the empire was doing very well out of the slave trade at some point even if there were no slaves in UK (which iirc there were some depending how the law on bringing bringing in slaves stood at the point), so I don't think we can disclaim responsibility like that. Whether we should feel personally guilty for something that happened before anyone now living was born is a different issue, but I think we should acknowledge it happened
As a brit I didn't know cornwall + ireland were raided for slaves into the 1700s (earlier, with viking Circa 1000 yes, but not after). Could you provide some solid links please? TIA
I work with SPI devices a bit, and _some_ places have shifted from MISO/MOSI (Master in Slave out etc) to CIPO/COPI. Or PICO/POCI (Pico? Like the really cheap and popular RPi device?). MISO/MOSI is at least consistent, unambiguous, and is _literally a master/slave situation_. Unless the end game is to remove the words master and slave from the dictionary in case someone gets offended, this is stupid.
Whats new is that people now base their identity around it and expect some kind of validation to happen. Do a mental scenario where people did that not with gender identity, but with their heritage or national identity.
I can understand the master/slave thing as it does directly come from "slavery" so although I think it's stupid to change git I can see it being an issue. Not being from the US I never realized why the large bedroom in a house was called the master bedroom.
Changing blacklist and whitelist to allowlist and denylist is however stupid.
Notice that “master” in the context of git has nothing to do with slavery. Master means the “reference” like “master” copy for CDs / Records that duplicates are made from.
Etymologicaly master comes from magister that also means expert / teacher. This is more apparent in some Latin languages like Spanish (I’m Spanish) where we have words like Maestro meaning teacher.
In Spanish Master copy translates to “Copia Maestra”. Nothing to do with slavery.
Most progressives in the US don’t know anything about this and / or conveniently ignore it.
> The «master» to «main» change was totally unnecessary and B.S. imho.
If I recall correctly, the point of reflecting upon the usage of specific terms was not that every single person thought it was B.S. but that a minority might feel negatively impacted by them, and it took no trouble at all to accommodate them by switching to less charged terms.
Basically it's the same argument behind not swearing at the workspace.
Were you negatively impacted by replacing references to "master/slave" or "blacklist" with terms like "primary/secondary" or "allowlist"? I hear a lot of people whining about these but I'm yet to hear any coherent argument against it.
It's also telling that this dead horse is being flogged in a discussion on the US Federal Government looking into recurring accusations of racial bigotry.
> But that's not even what "master" means in git. There is no "slave" branch.
I think you're trying to cherry-picking debatable examples as strawmen. The central argument was not that some inclusive terms may or may not extend to all applications. The central argument being made in this thread by anti-inclusiveness proponents is that each and every single proposal to use terms that are not racist or bigoted should be rejected, regardless of their suitability.
In addition, I don't see anyone even try to argue that "master" branch is suited of even makes sense, while alternative terms such as "mainline", "development", "production", or even "release" are extensively used.
Sorry, but it's obvious that you are. This discussion is not about Git but about Tesla's history of harassment, racism, and overall bigotry, and the thread you're commenting on is clearly about the usage of inclusive language instead of legacy non-inclusive terms. I feel you're playing dumb and disingenuous to pretend it's suddenly about Git, which is really not cool or contributing positively to the discussion.
Inertia is not merely caused by a psychological block, overcoming it carries real tangible costs. There are countless examples where technically superior solutions exist, but the benefits they offer do not outweigh the cost of overcoming inertia.
Consider the QWERTY keyboard, which is far from the most efficient design. JavaScript is notorious for its quirks. Unix commands often lack intuitiveness, suffering from poor naming conventions. Linux is coded in a language that has memory safety issues. Even the English language itself, is riddled with inconsistencies and arbitrary exceptions. The list goes on.
To surmount the inertia for any of the mentioned examples, the replacement solution has better be significantly superior. A marginal improvement simply won't suffice, given the large costs of change.
To many people, the switch from "master" to "main" had benefits that were, at best, debatable, while introducing substantial costs such as fragmentation, outdated tutorials and scripts, and confusion for beginners, among others. That's what got people worked up.
> Inertia is not merely caused by a psychological block, overcoming it carries real tangible costs. There are countless examples where technically superior solutions exist, but the benefits they offer do not outweigh the cost of overcoming inertia.
What colossal cost do you see in granting users the choice of, say, picking their default branch name instead of being forced to use "master"?
What cost do you see in referring to "blacklists" as "allowlist" instead?
Have you ever noticed that critical projects like Kubernetes managed to adopt clear and unambiguous concepts such as "control plane node" and "worker node" without making dubious remarks regarding "inertia"?
Any argument regarding "inertia" frankly sounds like a lame excuse to stick with bigoted and racially-charged terms without any valid reason other than a refusal to extend the most basic of common courtesies.
The costs were moderate, not colossal. But they were still bigger than the benefits, which were tiny to non-existant. Because 99.99% of people do not actually see a "master branch" as a racially-charged or bigoted term.
In the case of Kubernetes, I suppose those terms were chosen from the beginning so there was no cost of switching. And hence why no one complained about it.
Which incidentally supports my claim: that people were upset about the cost of changing rather than because of their secret admiration for slavery.
Care to point out any concrete example? Just pick the absolute best example you can imagine. So far none was provided. There's all this talk about "cost" but apparently it's so costly that even providing a concrete example is prohibitively expensive.
> In the case of Kubernetes, I suppose those terms were chosen from the beginning so there was no cost of switching. And hence why no one complained about it.
What's there to complain? Absolutely nothing at all.
But I did provide some examples in my original comment: "fragmentation, outdated tutorials and scripts, and confusion for beginners".
> What's there to complain? Absolutely nothing at all.
Well yes, that's my point. We agree on that. In the case of git, I am sure if "main" had always been the convention there would have been nothing to complain about as well. In fact, I am sure the same people who complained about the change from "master" to "main" would have complained about a change from "main" to "master".
This is such a silly argument. Let’s call it “m” then - it’s even easier to type, so should be an even bigger win, right? Thousands of scripts and workflows be damned.
Less silly than you might think. An important part of life is letting people you don't like make the world better. The people behind this change are the up-in-others-business personalities. They're always going to be destructive, but we should appreciate when they do a little good nevertheless.
I really try hard not to mock people on HN, but you need to take a look in the mirror. Your sheltered world view of what "makes the world better" isn't reflective of everyone elses, nor objectively true. I'm glad you think it's good, but you must understand that those who don't agree aren't generally 'bigoted racists' or even people who "don't like" those making the changes.
Literally everyone who renamed their master branch to main thought it was good, that is why they did it. There isn't some international police force conspiring to strong-arm unwilling coders into renaming their default git branch.
Except its a very common adjective, so any time you refer to it you have to say 'main branch' otherwise you've introduced unnecessary ambiguity. Whereas 'master' refers to one thing and one thing only in most contexts (unless you're selling bedrooms).
> Replacing one well known default with another non-retroactively increases cognitive load.
It's quite clear that managing cognitive loads is the least of all concerns considered by proponents of sticking with non-inclusive terms.
For example, the terms "blacklist"/"whitelist" do not impose a lower cognitive load than "denylist"/"allowlist", but somehow this argument is used in favour of sticking with the legacy/non-descriptive terms.
Also, there is no objective meaning to "slave". In the times of old, people talked about "slave drives" and I bet that most of the proponents of sticking with racist/bigoted language cannot even describe what it's supposed to be.
Yeah I dont think germany is a good example of mutual respect. Far from it actually. Racism and discrimination are rampant in that country, including in tech. Any german moralising americans on racism should first look at their own 10x issues.
Because it’s not in the german media. Censorship ensures the image is clean but in reality germany is at an extreme that makes the us shine. Perhaps not shootings but other types of discrimination.
We use the microservices architecture as a single team and don’t have any issues with this for many years. The key is to have a monorepo and stay consistent by following strict coding guidelines.
In my opinion it makes the backend way more resilient than a monolith.
There are some reasons it may lead to resiliency; another teams features slow dB queries not being on your db, teams not mutating data in a shared db, memory leaks in someone elses feature not taking your app down. Being able to choose language/libraries and tune the runtime to your requirements.
Of course when you replace function calls with network calls, make everything asynchronous and eventually consistent, there is a lot of work to do to not end up with a less reliable system.
> IPC is still simpler and cheaper than network calls.
I specifically called out the extra complexity of network calls in microservices, not sure if you read the full comment.
> A monolith doesn't force a single process
I'm not convinced; if my small/specific code has it's own process, I would say it's a microservice. Sure, we can have replicas for redundancy, that doesn't mean I won't have reliability issues when my process is crashed.
> A monolith doesn't force a single database.
> A monolith doesn't force never having an external service for a specialized use case, or FFI
True, sadly it doesn't usually work this way. People take the path of least resistance.
Also once you add multiple DBs you start to get into eventual consistency; which is one of the harder parts of microservices.
> I specifically called out the extra complexity of network calls in microservices, not sure if you read the full comment.
Calling out networking doesn't preclude me from mentioning IPC. IPC isn't limited to network calls, it can be as simple as shared memory and hit millions of OPS: github.com/OpenHFT/Chronicle-Map
> I'm not convinced; if my small/specific code has its own process, I would say it's a microservice.
And you'd be wrong. A core tenant of microservices is being able to individually deploy your microservices. If I spin up a new process for some high risk, highly memory intensive process I've introduced a fraction of the operational complexity of a seperate server and retained the core value proposition of reducing its blast radius if things go south.
Of course again, if you're having so much trouble handle writing software that's reliable that you being to consider isolating instability as a top benefit from your IPC setup instead of a tiny value add... it might be a sign you're not ready for microservices.
_
> True, sadly it doesn't usually work this way. People take the path of least resistance.
> Also once you add multiple DBs you start to get into eventual consistency; which is one of the harder parts of microservices.
You're making my point: If you don't have the engineering chops as a team to make a robust monolith, you definitely don't have the skills and resources to start looking at microservices.
Eventual consistency is not inherent to having multiple databases. If I have an oft changing ephemeral set of data that only affects one feature and it's creating an impedance mismatch with our main datastore, nothing is stopping us from pulling in Redis for all the queries we were previously sending to Postgres, and as far as anything relying on that feature is concerned, nothing at all changed.
With even half decent engineering, Redis going down doesn't break any differently than it would have for a microservice: you define the same error boundaries as before and the failure case ends up the same.
I mean seriously, if your team can't handle having a second data store, imagine the bedlam when you're trying to handle multiple languages across multiple data sources in a non-centralized manner?
_
Microservices are a pattern for companies where a "microservice" gets the kind of development and devops support that would justify spinning off a new mid-sized enterprise.
When you're Netflix your `api/movies/[movieId]/subtitles` endpoint is serving the kind of traffic most companies will never see in their lifetime and needs optimizations that maybe 100 companies in the world will ever need.
For the rest of us EC2 has 224C/488T CPU 24,000 GB RAM machines with 38 GBPs I/O bandwidth. If your business ever scales so far that you outgrow that, throw some of that X Billion dollar valuation money at the problem and build your microservices.
> Calling out networking doesn't preclude me from mentioning IPC.
You made the same point I made as though it was in contradiction to what I said. Adding a network call adds complexity, yes.
> A core tenant of microservices is being able to individually deploy your microservices.
And why would you not want this to be independently deployable?
> You're making my point: If you don't have the engineering chops as a team to make a robust monolith, you definitely don't have the skills and resources to start looking at microservices.
Firstly, you never made that point. Also, I never argued against it, in fact I agree completely.
> Microservices are a pattern for companies where a "microservice" gets the kind of development and devops support that would justify spinning off a new mid-sized enterprise.
Ah sorry, I guess replying to people supporting microservices by calling out the gaps in technical knowledge they're using to justify microservices is not the same as saying ..."you definitely don't have the skills and resources to start looking at microservices"
Ah, wait it is.
> And why would you not want this to be independently deployable?
Because FAANG has more engineers devoted to managing deployment/observability/version skew/DX/scaling/security than you have engineers. Simplifying your needs in those realms helps you greatly.
That says exactly nothing. At Netflix scale their most random "trivial" endpoints are easily doing scale that entire SMEs won't ever deal with.
When FAANG is your case study in any technical discussion in a public forum, you're default wrong. I work at an AV company, I'm not about to start telling people the insane architecture we need to support ingesting petabytes of data is something that anyone else needs.
Any useful technical discussion needs to be grounded in what the 99% need, and microservices are not it.
> Ah sorry, I guess replying to people supporting microservices
Again, at no point did I make an argument for microservices.
> that's just SOA
Absolutely not, from your own reference:
> Each service provides a business capability.
Spinning a high memory task off into it's own process is not a business capability. Microservices are more granluar than SOA services, your describing a microservice.
> That says exactly nothing. At Netflix scale their most random "trivial" endpoints are easily doing scale that entire SMEs won't ever deal with.
You said microservices are for when a microservice would have the support equivelant to a medium enterprise, this is not true even at netflix scale. They absolutely have services owned by very small teams, or else they wouldn't have more than 1000.
> When FAANG is your case study in any technical discussion in a public forum, you're default wrong.
Well who do we use as a case study on microservices then?
> Any useful technical discussion needs...
A technical discussion requires nuance, not turning into a black and white one side versus the other.
Yes, you can have multiple DBs in a monolith, but you tend not to. In microservices you are basically forced to.
It's a crude and expensive way to force modularisation. However, that is still what it often achieves, it gives you infra that you can keep other people away from and lets you be in charge.
Bad input crashes app, monolith fails over, other instance crashes. Full outage.
Assuming proper vertical separation, this risk can be reduced by microservices.
Care to enlighten me? Your comment reads like "assuming the best case scenario for X and worst case scenario for Y, X can reduce the risk". Well, you don't say.
There'll always be critical microservices that keep your app running. It doesn't matter if all your other services are running if the one serving up core functionality goes down.
If your engineering rigor is so poor that you can't get reliable failovers with a monolith, god help you keeping microservices running.
You‘re probably not the target group. It’s an open source project (in comparison to the MacOS walled garden) and I think that especially your 3rd question is disrespectful. In general your comment reads like a rant against the open source philosophy to me and is attacking/demotivating people who spend their spare time to create free software. Instead of attacking OSS creators one should give kudos and encourage them to go on.
… just my 5 cents.
"helloSystem is a desktop system for creators with a focus on simplicity, elegance, and usability. Its design follows the “Less, but better” philosophy. It is intended as a system for “mere mortals”, welcoming to switchers from the Mac."
I think I am kind of exactly the target group.
Why is "why is half of the screenshot used as my first encounter with this system in a different language from the rest" a disrespectful question?
Just to validate an idea here: I’m using k8s (20+ services) and trying to stick to the 12factor design pattern by having all the baking/companion services, also like cron jobs deployed from within the service directory. Right now I’m using k8s cron services for cron jobs and log the steps and observe with DataDog. Using k8s cron services feels right somehow but the observability with DataDog not. So, would it make sense for me, to deploy a baking k8s web service running sidequest instead?