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

The OpenTF Manifesto

opentf.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 392 posts

Re: The OpenTF Manifesto

#341

Post by 0ct4via »

kragen wrote: post #245
fishnchips wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marcin here, co-founder of Spacelift. Even though I strongly believe the OpenTF fork could open up incredible possibilities for the community (I could go on and on about it), it is an equivalent of a civil war. It doesn't serve the community and our only interest is in the continued strength of the community that we continue to build for. Based on my immense respect for what's been built under Hashi's umbrella I'd ra…

it's not war hashicorp has decided they don't want to contribute to open source any more they're totally within their rights to do so, and it doesn't harm anybody; it's not the equivalent of going around blowing up buildings, raping women, and napalming children. at most we can wish they had continued doing the beneficial things they were previously doing maybe they'll change their minds, as you say, but that's no re…

Don't you think you should check yourself before attacking others?

> "it's unclear to me which of the parties you intend to accuse of doing the moral equivalent of burning innocent people alive en masse, but either way, maybe you should think about walking back that rhetoric a bit"

... but only earlier today were you equating a data protection law with the Holocaust... seems you could do with a bit less projection and rhetoric yourself, Kraggy.

Re: The OpenTF Manifesto

#342

Post by jjnoakes »

verdverm wrote: post #301
jjnoakes wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general maybe, but in the specific context above, I think calling that loop declarative is accurate, and laughing at that classification is a poor response rooted in a deep misunderstanding.

import pulumi from pulumi_gcp import storage bucket = "hof-io--develop-internal" name = "pulumi/hack/condition.txt" cond = False msg = "running" cnt = 0 while not cond: cnt += 1 key = storage.get_bucket_object_content(name=name, bucket=bucket) print(cnt, key.content) if key.content == "exit": msg = "hallo!" break pulumi.export('msg', msg) pulumi.export('cnt', cnt) --- 769 exit 770 exit 771 exit 772 exit 773 exit 774…

The claim above isn't "imperative is impossible".

Re: The OpenTF Manifesto

#343

Post by jjnoakes »

lmm wrote: post #298
jjnoakes wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems extremely dismissive and shallow. The imperative part of that code appears to be analogous to templating. The actual work done under the covers is not imperative, but is based on the difference between the result of the template execution and the current state of the system. That's what makes it declarative.

> This seems extremely dismissive and shallow. When someone tries to make a sophisticated argument that up is down and white is black, dismissive and shallow is the right response. > The actual work done under the covers is not imperative Having a declarative layer somewhere in the stack doesn't make something declarative, if that's not the layer you actually use to work on and reason about the system. See the famous…

> When someone tries to make a sophisticated argument that up is down and white is black

This is where the deep misunderstanding is coming from.

Re: The OpenTF Manifesto

#344

Post by kragen »

0ct4via wrote: post #340
kragen wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my objection is not that mass graves, piles of mangled bodies, your close friends unexpectedly disappearing into pink mist, and terrible stenches are too sacred to be used as a metaphor for something else my objection is that warfare involves people intentionally harming each other, and that doesn't seem to be what's going on here. it's not that war is a more extreme version of the situation; it's that it's direction…

Not sacred enough for you to invoke the Holocaust in a discussion about data protection legislation and the "right to be forgotten" within mere hours of this statement, however... Such hypocrisy, attacking others for "rhetoric" that needs to be "dialled back a bit" when you're every bit as guilty of the exact. same. thing.

please note that the comment you are replying to says the opposite of what you are implying it does; it says 'my objection is not that mass graves, (...) are too sacred'

the comment you are referring to, for anyone who is interested, concerns the question of whether or not there is a higher standard of morality to which legislation can be held, or whether legislation itself is the ultimate moral authority, or whether there is in fact no objective standard of morality at all. anyone who is interested in that kind of thing can read it at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37147305

Re: The OpenTF Manifesto

#345

Post by kragen »

0ct4via wrote: post #341
kragen wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not war hashicorp has decided they don't want to contribute to open source any more they're totally within their rights to do so, and it doesn't harm anybody; it's not the equivalent of going around blowing up buildings, raping women, and napalming children. at most we can wish they had continued doing the beneficial things they were previously doing maybe they'll change their minds, as you say, but that's no re…

Don't you think you should check yourself before attacking others? > "it's unclear to me which of the parties you intend to accuse of doing the moral equivalent of burning innocent people alive en masse, but either way, maybe you should think about walking back that rhetoric a bit" ... but only earlier today were you equating a data protection law with the Holocaust... seems you could do with a bit less projection an…

this is careless reasoning; rather than equating a so-called 'data protection law' with the holocaust, i said the justification others were using for that law was incorrect, because if it were correct, it would also justify the holocaust

this is not an extremely advanced form of logic, but i understand that it is not within everyone's grasp

the comment in question is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37147305

octavia's other, rather astounding comment in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37149528 is probably also useful context

my objection to the war rhetoric in this case is that it casts people as opponents who are not, in fact, opponents, just different parties pursuing largely independent interests. in that context playing 'let's you and him fight' seems unlikely to improve the situation

Re: The OpenTF Manifesto

#346

Post by rirze »

pa7ch wrote: post #186
AtNightWeCode wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Honest question, what do you consider config vs infra? What is infra if not configuring a system to run?

It's better framed as infrastructure orchestration vs infrastructure configuration. Orchestration is more about herding the resources while configuration is about delving into the instance/server/resource environment to make changes. The terms are pretty arbitrary IMO, but those are the vocabulary used in the industry.

Re: The OpenTF Manifesto

#347

Post by verdverm »

jjnoakes wrote: post #342
verdverm wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

import pulumi from pulumi_gcp import storage bucket = "hof-io--develop-internal" name = "pulumi/hack/condition.txt" cond = False msg = "running" cnt = 0 while not cond: cnt += 1 key = storage.get_bucket_object_content(name=name, bucket=bucket) print(cnt, key.content) if key.content == "exit": msg = "hallo!" break pulumi.export('msg', msg) pulumi.export('cnt', cnt) --- 769 exit 770 exit 771 exit 772 exit 773 exit 774…

The claim above isn't "imperative is impossible".

The claim above is that Pulumi uses an imperative interface and that it is quite easy to slip past the declarative guardrails, so in most cases Pulumi is imperative, not declarative. The fact that Pulumi makes this separation opaque can be discussed, as can the clear separation be shown an alternative with benefits

The claim I keep seeing from Pulumi folks is that Pulumi is declarative, which is is not, as shown in multiple posts by many people. Please stop calling it such, it demonstrates dishonesty towards users

Re: The OpenTF Manifesto

#348

Post by verdverm »

AaronFriel wrote: post #318
verdverm wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

import pulumi from pulumi_gcp import storage bucket = "hof-io--develop-internal" name = "pulumi/hack/condition.txt" cond = False msg = "running" cnt = 0 while not cond: cnt += 1 key = storage.get_bucket_object_content(name=name, bucket=bucket) print(cnt, key.content) if key.content == "exit": msg = "hallo!" break pulumi.export('msg', msg) pulumi.export('cnt', cnt) --- 769 exit 770 exit 771 exit 772 exit 773 exit 774…

I think this is an advantage of Pulumi, here are two use cases: 1. Creating a resource where created is not the same as ready. This is extraordinarily common with compute resources (a virtual machine, a container, an HTTP server, a process) where attempting to create follow-up resources can result in costly retry-back-off loops. Even when creating Kubernetes resources, Pulumi will stand up an internet-connected deplo…

Of course you think it is an advantage, you work for Pulumi

I'm telling you this is not how a potential user sees the same situation, that it is a disadvantage and was one of the reasons we are not making the switch.

This example above is exactly the kind of code we don't want in ops, it depends on the user environment and physical location at the time they run the command, bad practice. Thanks for an extra talking point though

Re: The OpenTF Manifesto

#349

Post by hdaz0017 »

Atotalnoob wrote: post #256
hdaz0017 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hopefully it's not down to CTOs to be picking tools for their company but a process within DevOps/Engineering teams etc. Does anyone else see this as the Nagios Effect all over again, there must be lots to learn from history?

What is the nagios effect?

Nagios used to be only Open Source then they created the Enterprise version and left the open source core version lagging behind, it was forked a billion times or more :) creating the Nagios Effect. A lot of monitoring software / companies then removed / replaced the core of Nagios from their products.

Re: The OpenTF Manifesto

#350

Post by hdaz0017 »

ghshephard wrote: post #239
hdaz0017 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a big difference though Terraform is the out and out winner in its market. All their other products are at best small x% share of a crowded market or dominated by another product.

Genuinely curious - other than Vault - what other product is there for secret management in the cloud infrastructure space. I get that CyberArk Conjur is big in the enterprise space, but I thought cloud users, even with k8s, mostly went with vault.

HashiCorp Vault - is big in Secrets management but its not the Terraform of Secrets management it's just too easy to make another product.

AWS Secrets Manager

AWS Systems Manager Parameter Store

AWS KMS

Google Cloud KMS - Cloud Key Management System

Azure Key Vault

confidant - https://lyft.github.io/confidant

keywhiz - https://github.com/square/keywhiz

knox - https://github.com/pinterest/knox

strongboxsafe - https://strongboxsafe.com

conjur - https://www.conjur.org

+ many more

Ansible Vault - probably not competing directly

I am pretty sure companies like netflix, facebook, uber, tesla and others are probably using their own in house creations.

Post reply on HN