Live data from Hacker News

The OpenTF Manifesto

opentf.org

171–180 of 392 posts

Re: The OpenTF Manifesto

#171

Actually, can we just kill Terraform? Please? Terraform has a bad design. It's a configuration management tool, first and foremost, and configuration management tools need to do one thing well: fix things. Not just "change state", but functionally, actually fix some software to make it work again. Terraform is really bad at this. It's difficult to configure, difficult to operate, and it likes to find any reason at al…

Yeah I think a restricted nix-like language might be a much better choice.

Re: The OpenTF Manifesto

#172

Gruntwork here. You can find our statement here: The Future of Terraform must be open—our plan and pledge to keep Terraform open source. https://blog.gruntwork.io/the-future-of-terraform-must-be-op... If you want to help us keep Terraform open source, please show your support at https://opentf.org/ !

Great to see your commitment but I'm also curious why you, unlike some other companies, have chosen not to support with any full time employees? It seems your business is largely based on Terraform and saying pretty much "we'll contribute code" doesn't signal too much commitment.

I realize my comment might sound like an accusation but that's not my intention, I want to hear your reasoning about it!

Re: The OpenTF Manifesto

#173

Actually, can we just kill Terraform? Please? Terraform has a bad design. It's a configuration management tool, first and foremost, and configuration management tools need to do one thing well: fix things. Not just "change state", but functionally, actually fix some software to make it work again. Terraform is really bad at this. It's difficult to configure, difficult to operate, and it likes to find any reason at al…

> So it doesn't get changed or improved, and it can never be replaced. It is the incumbent that blocks progress. A technological quagmire we can't extricate ourselves from.

This describes almost every tool in my toolchain that's over a decade old, this is just what happens. If you want to kill terraform and replace it with something better the usual bar is that it must be 10x better. If that's something you think you could do I'd be (genuinely) excited to see it :)

Re: The OpenTF Manifesto

#174
post #19

I think the problem is that if hashicorp thinks you are a competitor you and your clients now have legal/operational issues. Ie you are now a competitor because we are releasing a product just like yours, here is a letter from a lawyer telling you to stop using terraform.

> if hashicorp thinks you are a competitor This is precisely the problem with the new BSL license. Whether your usage of Terraform complies with the license isn’t determined by the legal terms, but instead is entirely at the whim of HashiCorp. And they can change their mind at any time. It makes it impossible to build anything on top of Terraform. I talk about that more here: https://blog.gruntwork.io/the-future-of-t…

This covers really well why I think the BSL license is a non-starter for things like TF. I get trying to prevent AWS from competing with you using your own open source code, but it creates this ambiguity where it's not clear whether lots of uses are or are not competing with HashiCorp.

> For example, if you’re an independent software vendor (ISV) or managed service provider (MSP) in the DevOps space, and you use Terraform with your customers (but not necessarily Terraform Cloud/Enterprise), are you a competitor? If your company creates a CI / CD product, is that competitive with Terraform Cloud or Waypoint? If your CI / CD product natively supports running Terraform as part of your CI / CD builds, is that embedding or hosting? If you built a wrapper for Terraform, is that a competitor? Is it embedding only if you include the source code or does using the Terraform CLI count as embedding? What if the CLI is installed by the customer? Is it hosting if the customer runs your product on their own servers?

The answer is at the whim of HashiCorp and subject to change at any point in the future. Even ignoring the attempt to dilute the meaning of "open source", the practical implications of the BSL license are more than enough reason to coalesce around a truly open source fork IMO.

Re: The OpenTF Manifesto

#175
As an end-user, not competing with HashiCorp, this change doesn't worry me. According to their FAQ [1]:

  10. What are the usage limitations for HashiCorp’s products under BSL?
  All non-production uses are permitted. All production uses are allowed other than hosting or embedding the software in an offering competitive with HashiCorp commercial products, hosted or self-managed.

  24. Can I host the HashiCorp products as a service internal to my organization?
  Yes. The terms of the BSL allow for all non-production and production usage, except for providing competitive offerings to third parties that embed or host our software. Hosting the products for your internal use of your organization is permitted.
[1] https://www.hashicorp.com/license-faq

Re: The OpenTF Manifesto

#176

Actually, can we just kill Terraform? Please? Terraform has a bad design. It's a configuration management tool, first and foremost, and configuration management tools need to do one thing well: fix things. Not just "change state", but functionally, actually fix some software to make it work again. Terraform is really bad at this. It's difficult to configure, difficult to operate, and it likes to find any reason at al…

I don’t know what it is about the ops sector that favors ugly tools, but apparently they don’t care, otherwise Pulumi would see more traction.

Re: The OpenTF Manifesto

#177
post #150

If any Hashicorp people are reading, can you please tell your middle and senior management that this decision has deeply soured my entire DevOps cohort on continuing to use Terraform in the future. We're already exploring alternatives. Future client projects may not use Terraform at all. Languages and frameworks must remain open or they will wither and die.

I'm not Hashicorp, but I mean look at Docker. They built the most valuable devops tool of the last generation and can barely muster a viable business. Why would Hashicorp give the slightest worry to losing thousands and thousands of non-paying customers? The upside is lots of money and the downside is loss of halo. Honestly, it's an unfortunate game of expectation setting. If I wrote an open letter decrying Salesforc…

  Why would Hashicorp give the slightest worry to losing thousands and thousands of non-paying customers?
Because it goes hand in hand with losing hundreds of unpaid developers, testers, bug-reporters and evangelists.

  If I wrote an open letter decrying Salesforce for not open sourcing their codebase, nobody would take me seriously. But we expect better from Hashicorp for some reason.
Because the community contributed to the codebase. Salesforce was never open source, Terraform was and took community contributions, that's the reason we have different expectations.

  [Docker] can barely muster a viable business
Docker split their development and enterprise offerings into two companies years ago and both are making money.

Re: The OpenTF Manifesto

#178

We at Oxide were honored to be asked to add our name to OpenTF Manifesto. Our statement: At Oxide, our vision has been that on-premises infrastructure is deserving of a system consisting of both hardware and software, at once integrated and open. Ensuring Terraform users can easily deploy to Oxide has been essential for realizing this vision: we want customers of an Oxide rack to be able to use the tools that they kn…

I can rest easy now that my take on this aligns with Oxide's and I'm not being sarcastic. I've been following the podcast for 2 years now, and you guys are spot on with your stance on opening up and keeping things Open.

It would be ironic though if Hubris ever gets relicensed

Re: The OpenTF Manifesto

#179

Actually, can we just kill Terraform? Please? Terraform has a bad design. It's a configuration management tool, first and foremost, and configuration management tools need to do one thing well: fix things. Not just "change state", but functionally, actually fix some software to make it work again. Terraform is really bad at this. It's difficult to configure, difficult to operate, and it likes to find any reason at al…

This is perhaps the most incorrect post you will ever find on HN. I am not a huge fan of Terraform. However, TF is made for infra not config. There are several tools out there to manage config like Salt, Ansible and so on.

Re: The OpenTF Manifesto

#180
I like Terraform and will continue to use it. I'm just an end user that isn't involved in building other product offerings on it or a user of other derivative products.

Even though this really doesn't affect my use case it does feel like kind of a dirty bait and switch. I do hope for a future where there's a version (and Terraform provider module versions) that are actively maintained under a true open source license. I'll favor using those over the official BSL version as much as possible.

I guess it's the CLA that all of the contributors signed that allows this to happen? I wonder if there's a way for open source licenses to address this, and disallow the use of CLAs, or require some CLA clause that doesn't allow sudden switches to non-permissive licenses?

Post reply on HN