Let's hope they don't try the Broadcom shenanigans on terraform!!
IBM to buy HashiCorp in $6.4B deal
301–310 of 391 posts
Re: IBM to buy HashiCorp in $6.4B deal
#302Is OpenTofu better?
Hashicorp does so much more than terraform, but I don’t think OpenTofu is better than terraform. I’m not sure that was ever really an interesting issue, however, I think the main competition to terraform was/is things like Bicep. I know the decision makers in our shop spent quite a lot of time deciding between the two. Finally decided on bicep after a number of what has probably been the most boring workshops I’ve ev…
TF, Vault, Packer, Consul, Nomad.
Waypoint and Boundary don't seem all that useful.
Vagrant has fallen by the wayside supplanted by Docker and K8S. Vagrant was the origin, but quickly went from FOSS to FOSS-washed when it reneged on VMware support as a premium-only, closed-source option.
IBM is indistinguishable from Progress and Broadcom... it buys things and milks them while they decline.
Microsoft just lacks taste and any sense of accountability for all of the vulnerabilities and exploit damage it has, and continues to, inflict on the world.
Re: IBM to buy HashiCorp in $6.4B deal
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find the claims that Go is easy just wrong. It's actually a harder language to write in because without discipline, you are going to end up maintaining massive amounts of boilerplate. That's from someone who did a bunch - Perl, Ruby, Python, Java, C++, Scala. Syntax is one thing, assembling an application with maintainable code is something else.
What in particular did you find difficult building a maintainable codebase in Golang? Not quite understanding the boilerplate reference. Code generation in Golang is something I've found removed a lot of boilerplate.
> Code generation in Golang is something I've found removed a lot of boilerplate.
Not a gopher by any stretch, but to my way of thinking code generation is literally boilerplate, that's why its generated. Or does Go have some metaprogramming facilities I'm unaware of?
Re: IBM to buy HashiCorp in $6.4B deal
#304Should we migrate to OpenTofu?
Since IBM loves the Linux Foundation it's not impossible that Terraform and OpenTofu will merge like GCC and EGCS back in the day.
Exactly. Now that they own it, they can just roll back the license change and tap into the rest of the world doing the heavy lifting in terms of development. Hashicorp retired from that role when they changed the license.
Win win for IBM. They offer stability to their big corporate clients and they get to resell the work done by third parties. The BSL license is an obstacle to that because it means they have to reinvent wheels internally. Changing the license back means they can gut the R&D department at the price of a simple license change and focus instead on sales, support, and consulting.
Re: IBM to buy HashiCorp in $6.4B deal
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
I knew a guy who was laid off from IBM specifically for being older, which came out years later as part of the class action lawsuit...
There is a former column that was under multiple writers (same name), that did a great expose on IBM and age discrimination, but I don't want to give said column their due since the columnist had other issues.
Like Bourbaki? Or they all happened to share a name?
Re: IBM to buy HashiCorp in $6.4B deal
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have obviously never been the victim of IBMs consulting arm. I caution anyone against buying anything IBM now. Absolute nightmare to work with.
IBM’s consulting arm was finally so radioactive that they spun it out into a new company (Kyndryl). What I’ve seen is that customers still have a low opinion of the new company and they continue to refer to it as IBM.
Kyndryl is IBM??
Re: IBM to buy HashiCorp in $6.4B deal
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I understand were you are coming from but I actually like the explicit error handling in Golang. Things being explicit reduces complexity for me a lot and I find it easier to spot and resolve potential issues. It's definitely something that I can understand not working for everyone. This sound a lot of like Apple user arguments about iPhone 1 missing copy & paste over a decade ago. I am very pedantic about checking…
I think go makes more sense if you imagine spending more time reading MRs and code than writing it. Standard go error handling maximises for locality. You don't see many "long range" effects where you have to go and read the rest of the code to understand what's going to happen. Ideally everything you need is in the diff in front of you. Stuff like defer() schedules de-alloc "near" to where things get allocated, you…
Thanks for the Close() example, that's a nice solution, although would it work if you wanted to handle an error (not just log it?)
> Standard go error handling maximises for locality. You don't see many "long range" effects where you have to go and read the rest of the code to understand what's going to happen. Ideally everything you need is in the diff in front of you.
I'm assuming you're comparing to exceptions.
I don't know about that. I think this relies on discipline of the software engineer. I can see for example someone who is strict and only uses exceptions on failures and returns normal responses during usual operation.
With Go you can use errors.Is and errors.As which take away that locality. Or what's worse, you could have someone actually react based on the string of the error message (although with some packages, this might be the only way).
I still see your point though, but I also think Rust implemented what Go was trying to do.
You get a Result type, which you can either match to get the data and check the error, you can also pass it downward (yes, this will take away that locality, but then compiler will warn you if you have a new unhanded error downstream), or you can chose to unwrap without checking error, which will trigger panic on error.
Re: IBM to buy HashiCorp in $6.4B deal
#308Earlier quoted context omitted.
If companies didn’t go public regular people would not be able to invest in innovation. As much as people hate it, public markets democratize access to investments
Yeah, they sure innovated with all that public money they got over...three years? What did the release in the last three years exactly? Also, what "democratic access" did people get? The ability to buy at $80 a share and then eventually sell it at $30? Does anyone really believe this kind of stuff anymore?
What is there to believe?
Capitalism is not a religion, there is no belief involved.
Re: IBM to buy HashiCorp in $6.4B deal
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
IBM’s consulting arm was finally so radioactive that they spun it out into a new company (Kyndryl). What I’ve seen is that customers still have a low opinion of the new company and they continue to refer to it as IBM.
Kyndryl is IBM??
Yes and you wouldn't believe how bad they are. We had multiple incidents where colleagues had to explain basic stuff to them and hold their hands. I was in a couple of calls with their engineers and those instantly reduced my impostorship syndrome.
Re: IBM to buy HashiCorp in $6.4B deal
#310Well, it was nice while it lasted! HashiCorp always felt like a company made by actual engineers, not "bean counters". Now it will just be another cog in the IBM machine, slowly grinding it down, removing everything attractive, just like RedHat and CentOS. Hopefully this will create a new wave off innovation, and someone will create something to replace the monopoly on IaC that IBM now owns.
What we are seeing with VC driven "innovation", is only going to get worse when the Linux/BSD founders generation is gone.