> It’s arguably an extreme option and one that doesn’t even exist today

How is it blatantly arguing for this thing when it literally calls it extreme and something that doesn’t exist? I think a more fair criticism would be the fact they don’t call out vendor lock-in as a tradeoff

> to throw Kubernetes into the mix just to run some controllers that deploy those services will pointlessly add to your monthly bill.

I think you have a valid point it may be dubious but the article does outline purported reasons it could make sense for some people. I dont think there is a “right way” and a “wrong way” here, rather there is the way “you would do it” and “the way they’re proposing as an option”