Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Vault 0.10 released

hashicorp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 12 posts

Re: Vault 0.10 released

#2

Post by nodesocket »

The web-ui and Google Cloud IAM secrets engine plugin are awesome new features. I've been playing and setting up Vault today on GCP and overall really happy.

Also, I believe using Google Storage as a backed now works with clusters meaning Consul is now not required for clustering.

Re: Vault 0.10 released

#3

Post by zimbatm »

A simple thing that's been missing for a long time now is a way to patch existing secrets in the KV store. Since the secret itself is composed of keys and values it quickly becomes cumbersome to just update one of those. I guess now that versioning is enabled it will be easier to build a tool on top.

    $ vault kv put secret/my-secret my-value=itsasecret
    $ vault kv patch secret/my-secret new-value=othersecret
    ^--- this doesn't exist
    $ vault kv get secret/my-secret

    ====== Data ======
    Key         Value
    ---         -----
    my-value    itsasecret
    new-value   othersecret

Re: Vault 0.10 released

#5

Post by jlgaddis »

What happened to the old Unix philosophy about doing nothing on success (a.k.a. "Rule of Silence")?

That is:

  $ vault kv undelete -versions=2 secret/my-secret
  Success! Data written to: secret/undelete/my-secret
should instead be:

  $ vault kv undelete -versions=2 secret/my-secret
  $
Also, the screenshots on the Vault OSS UI Introduction page [0] are completely unintelligible.

[0]: https://www.hashicorp.com/resources/vault-oss-ui-introductio...

Re: Vault 0.10 released

#6

Post by jrs95 »

jlgaddis wrote: post #5

What happened to the old Unix philosophy about doing nothing on success (a.k.a. "Rule of Silence")? That is: $ vault kv undelete -versions=2 secret/my-secret Success! Data written to: secret/undelete/my-secret should instead be: $ vault kv undelete -versions=2 secret/my-secret $ Also, the screenshots on the Vault OSS UI Introduction page [0] are completely unintelligible. [0]: https://www.hashicorp.com/resources/vaul…

For your average user I think this is confusing and not good UX.

Since a lot of people using this tool will be developers with MacBooks and not hardcore *nix users, it’s probably a good choice to ignore that convention.

Re: Vault 0.10 released

#7

Post by otp124 »

jrs95 wrote: post #6
jlgaddis wrote: post #5

What happened to the old Unix philosophy about doing nothing on success (a.k.a. "Rule of Silence")? That is: $ vault kv undelete -versions=2 secret/my-secret Success! Data written to: secret/undelete/my-secret should instead be: $ vault kv undelete -versions=2 secret/my-secret $ Also, the screenshots on the Vault OSS UI Introduction page [0] are completely unintelligible. [0]: https://www.hashicorp.com/resources/vaul…

For your average user I think this is confusing and not good UX. Since a lot of people using this tool will be developers with MacBooks and not hardcore *nix users, it’s probably a good choice to ignore that convention.

> For your average user I think this is confusing and not good UX.

I disagree, as the average vault user is likely someone familiar with Unix (though there is a Windows binary). Here is an example that I just ran on my machine.. very silent.

  $ mkdir source
  $ cd source
  $ touch file
  $ rm file
  $

Re: Vault 0.10 released

#8

Post by otp124 »

A while back I was using Vault, and the standard logging didn't give me enough to setup any sort of useful detection & alerting capabilities. I tried to increase verbosity in Vault's logging, as the CLI would accept integer parameters, and the documentation made it seem this was possible.

However, the source code was hardcoded to only one logging level (they didn't actually have multiple logging levels). The homepage marketing-speak was disingenuous on this front. Coupled with other poor architecture choices (wasn't actually HA, forced you to use other Hashicorp products, etc), I lost interest in the product.

Seemed they were mostly focused on unique features than standard enterprise requirements. Have things improved?

Re: Vault 0.10 released

#9

Post by [deleted] »

otp124 wrote: post #7
jrs95 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For your average user I think this is confusing and not good UX. Since a lot of people using this tool will be developers with MacBooks and not hardcore *nix users, it’s probably a good choice to ignore that convention.

> For your average user I think this is confusing and not good UX. I disagree, as the average vault user is likely someone familiar with Unix (though there is a Windows binary). Here is an example that I just ran on my machine.. very silent. $ mkdir source $ cd source $ touch file $ rm file $

[deleted]

Re: Vault 0.10 released

#10

Post by emddudley »

jrs95 wrote: post #6
jlgaddis wrote: post #5

What happened to the old Unix philosophy about doing nothing on success (a.k.a. "Rule of Silence")? That is: $ vault kv undelete -versions=2 secret/my-secret Success! Data written to: secret/undelete/my-secret should instead be: $ vault kv undelete -versions=2 secret/my-secret $ Also, the screenshots on the Vault OSS UI Introduction page [0] are completely unintelligible. [0]: https://www.hashicorp.com/resources/vaul…

For your average user I think this is confusing and not good UX. Since a lot of people using this tool will be developers with MacBooks and not hardcore *nix users, it’s probably a good choice to ignore that convention.

Confirming success is only necessary when users do not trust the program (due to bugs, confusing UI/API, etc.). They will seek reassurance that their actions are successful. However, if users trust the program then no confirmation is needed.

We should be creating stable and predictable programs so that we can maintain users' trust. Otherwise we have to introduce hand-holding which degrades everyone's experience through extra cognitive overhead and user interaction.

Post reply on HN