This is just a very weird comparison. Seems like the author doesn’t understand why people run K8s.
Of course they also “managed” several k8s clusters using… wait for it… AWS.
I’d say, when you are all in AWS, then fine don’t use k8s. But you also don’t need Nomad then in most cases.
And if you do need nomad on AWS then that’s fine as well, but it’s not comparable to k8s in general.
And if self-hosting Nomad on AWS is (allegedly) so much easier than operating managed k8s (EKS), isn't that more damning rather than less?
The all-in AWS answer I suppose would be ECS. I quite like it but I think for anything beyond small, more than a few services part of the same system, I can understand wanting to run Nomad (or use EKS) instead.
The problem with running databases yourself is that it's hard to run databases, and having dedicated physical hardware works, until it doesn't. Nomad make it easy to run dedicated physical hardware for it. As soon as you have a failed EBS volume with your DB on it. Failed EBS volumes still happen frequently, though we've mostly obviated the problem by using managed dbs.
Know a few people who run hundreds of them too.
And it's perfect for dev shit were colleges pull in their PostgreSQL themselves until later through helm dependencies