Nomad also doesn't have a lot of feature that are built into kubernetes, features that otherwise require other hashicorp tools. So now you have a vault cluster, a consul cluster, a nomad cluster, then hcl to manage it all, probably a terraform enterprise cluster. So what have you gained? Besides the same amount of complexities with fewer features.

I think Nomad sounds like the direction the OP blog post is proposing to move in: a set of largely independent tools which can each address some aspect of the problem kubernetes is trying to solve.

> a set of largely independent tools which can each address some aspect of the problem kubernetes is trying to solve.

But Kubernetes is already this. Sure the core is a lot bigger than something like Nomad, but the some of it is replaceable, and there are plenty of simpler alternatives to those built in.

And anyway, my point still stands. What's the point of having 20 different independent systems that address the aspects K8s is trying to solve versus one big system that addresses all the headaches? To me having 20 different systems that potentially have many fundamental differences is more complex than a single system that has the same design philosophies and good integration across the board.