You're comparing apples to oranges. Hypervisors vs k8s makes no sense. And what makes you think that running containers in production is only viable with tools like k8s? That's like saying running vm in production only makes sense on openstack. Docker for example can easily be managed with Ansible, or if you want web tool, Portainer, including managing swarm clusters.
Nomad is another popular one that does not only containers but a few different types of jobs.
Do containers and management platform for containers, makes all the hard work of making the server resilient obsolete like RAID and backups, however we will assume that the DB are hosted outside of this scope like on Amazon services.
If you have a server running 500 containers, would it be easier for automation to spin up another 500 containers on new hardware (while dealing with whatever issues are caused by 500 containers being down) or easier to have RAID and simply swap a disk and continue on?
Actually for "easier", the container spinups can be automated, but the drive swap requires a human. The real effort is in acquiring another server to spin them up on. One approach is ignoring that an entire replacement server is needed.
Having a full server die and take all of its workloads with it has all the same impact with containers as with anything else. Containers are really just "really heavy threads", nothing more.
What you're talking about is one aspect of part of implementing DevOps that is often misinterpreted to mean the whole of it. And yes, it is stupid to call that DevOps. That's just Ops using different tools.
I see it as the opposite. Patrick's core DevOps...
"Thanks to the devopsdays conference, the idea of devops seems to live on. While talking with other people about it, I realize that it is difficult to frame it within the current IT landscape. At lot of the ideas are coming from different kinds of emerging technologies (T) and process management (P) approaches.
For me the two most important observations are:
there is a increase in feedback loops between business, all parts of the delivery process and operations
thanks to this feedback loops we increase the quality and speed up the flow"
This is the core of DevOps, not well described, but pretty clearly about IT, not development. This is the core. Very, very loosely defined to the point of useless, sure.
Then things like DevOps talking dev itself is the extra, the tack on later. It's not "part of" devops, any more than it is of any operations. And just how operations doesn't cease to exist without developers, neither does DevOps.
I believe everything on that page is all meant to be within the context of companies doing development. But I agree, the core of DevOps is about Ops and Business practices. However, I firmly believe the name DevOps comes from Ops and Development working together, and thus the reason why discussions of DevOps implementation specifics centre around companies doing software development. Though just based on that page, I could see why someone could still take a different view. However, I consider The DevOps Handbook to be the definitive source, rather than notes on the initial discussions.
I think doing that makes DevOps a pointless, useless concept. Hopefully that's not what he intended. As an ops practice, it has tremendous value. As a merger of dev and ops, it's just bluster.