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

IBM completes acquisition of HashiCorp

newsroom.ibm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 407 posts

Re: IBM completes acquisition of HashiCorp

#371

Post by lovehashbrowns »

ForHackernews wrote: post #276
lovehashbrowns wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely not better than Kubernetes, but I don't regret working on it and I like it as a simpler alternative to Kubernetes. I remember trying to hire people for it and not a single person ever even heard of it.

> I remember trying to hire people for it and not a single person ever even heard of it. I know, it's really sad. Kubernetes won because of mindshare and hype and 500,000 CNCF consulting firms selling their own rubbish to "finally make k8s easy to use".

It's also sad how much Hashicorp apparently ignores marketing for it. Especially when it works with Consul which is already in a lot of places. Also another funny memory is going into a decomm meeting where I was gonna ignore it like usual since 99% of it was another team decommissioning on-prem stuff. And out of nowhere I hear "we just got approval to decomm Consul. We'll be shutting down the servers in two weeks and waiting to see if anything breaks.." followed by my very stern "NO YOU WILL NOT" ahaha. What a mess that company was

Re: IBM completes acquisition of HashiCorp

#372

Post by dzamo_norton »

nayuki wrote: post #196
thisisnotauser wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had the incredible displeasure of having to maintain multiple massive legacy COTS systems that were once designed by promising startups and ultimately got bought by IBM. IBM turned every last one into the shittiest enterprise software trash you can imagine. Every IBM product I've ever used is universally reviled by every person I've met who also had to use it, without exaggeration in the slightest. If anything,…

> Every IBM product I've ever used is universally reviled by every person I've met who also had to use it During my time at IBM and at other companies a decade ago, I can name examples of this: * Lotus Notes instead of Microsoft Office. * Lotus Sametime Connect instead of... well Microsoft's instant messengers suck (MSN, Lync, Skype, Teams)... maybe Slack is one of the few tolerable ones? * Rational Team Concert inst…

ClearCase. You just triggered my PTSD!

Re: IBM completes acquisition of HashiCorp

#373

Post by carlwgeorge »

adastra22 wrote: post #369
ghaff wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The free LTS/distro and pay for support if you feel like it never really worked financially. Maybe Canonical is profitable at this point. It's not Red Hat (or SUSE for that matter.)

There are many large organizations that pay for RHEL support. Supercomputers, for example. These organizations also benefited from being able to spin up analog installs of CentOS on local machines for testing. Not anymore. I expect RHEL's market dominance in these areas to diminish over time.

For testing environments Red Hat will literally give them free RHEL. Problem solved.

Re: IBM completes acquisition of HashiCorp

#374

Post by carlwgeorge »

happymellon wrote: post #251
SEJeff wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Centos stream still exists and it is in fact the actual upstream of rhel.

But CentOS Stream is not CentOS. They are completely different products just reusing branding to confuse what people are asking for. RHEL Developer is closer, as a no-support, no-cost version of RHEL, but you still have the deal with the licence song and dance. CentOS gave folks a free version that let you run some dev environments that mostly mirrors prod, without worrying about licences or support. CentOS stream do…

To call it "completely different" is false. They are built differently, but the end result is still 90-95% the same software versions (because it has to be as the major version of RHEL). In fact, the way it is built differently is a massive improvement over the old process. The old CentOS was put together by 2-4 people at a time, with long delays after the corresponding RHEL releases, with no ability to actually fix bugs or accept contributions. The new CentOS (CentOS Stream) is built by thousands of engineers, literal subject matter experts who can actually fix bugs you report to them, or even better merge a contribution you submit. Also, the branding wasn't reused, the branding is for the whole CentOS Project, which still exists and is more active than ever. Also, you can still use CentOS in your dev environments, and it works great for that because you can prepare your production workload for upcoming changes in the next RHEL minor version ahead of time. You can also get free RHEL for dev environments, for the things you need to validate with the same minor version as your production RHEL environments.

Re: IBM completes acquisition of HashiCorp

#375

Post by carlwgeorge »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #249
SEJeff wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Centos stream still exists and it is in fact the actual upstream of rhel.

But for all practical purposes, that is dropping CentOS. They completely changed the identity of the product, so the fact it has the same branding isn't going to placate anyone.

People that actually care about the distro being sustainable are quite happy with the changes. Sorry you don't get it.

Re: IBM completes acquisition of HashiCorp

#376

Post by carlwgeorge »

vrighter wrote: post #250
SEJeff wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Centos stream still exists and it is in fact the actual upstream of rhel.

so? That just means that it is not necessarily compatible with the current version of rhel deployed on our servers

It's the same major version, so it's extremely compatible. Plus if you run into something that doesn't work the same, you just discovered what's going to break for your workload on your RHEL system when the next minor version is released.

Re: IBM completes acquisition of HashiCorp

#377

Post by nunez »

mroche wrote: post #149
zzzeek wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Red Hatter here. none of that has happened for us at Red Hat. Other than the one round of layoffs which occurred at the time that basically every tech company everywhere was doing much larger layoffs, that was pretty much it and there's no reason to think our layoffs wouldn't have been much greater at that time if we were not under the IBM umbrella. Besides that, I dont even remember when we were acquired, absolutely…

Former Hatter here (Solution Architect Q2 '21 -> Q4 '22). Other than the discussions that took place around moving the storage/business products and teams under IBM (and the recently announcement transfer of middleware), I wouldn't have expected engineering to do that much interfacing with IBM. At most, division leadership maybe (this is just personal speculation). Finance and Sales on the other hand... quite a bit m…

> They key thing people need to remember about the Red Hat acquisition is that it was purely for expertise and personnel. Red Hat has no (or very little) IP. It's not like IBM was snatching them up to take advantage of patents or whatnot. It's in their best interest to do as little as possible to poke the bear that is RH engineering because if there was ever a large scale exodus, IBM would be holding the worlds largest $34B sack of excrement we've seen.

We thought the same thing at VMware until Hock moved WITH THE QUICKNESS to jack up prices and RIF a ton of engineering staff.

That said, I'm in tech sales at the Hat now, and IBM is definitely around, but it's still a cool company that tries hard to treat their people right.

They also care A LOT about being an open-source company. Most of my onboarding was dedicated to this, and sales treats it seriously.

Re: IBM completes acquisition of HashiCorp

#378

Post by carlwgeorge »

bayindirh wrote: post #309
jonathanspw wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bug for bug is a sham and always was. It's a disservice to users to only clone something. Underneath it all, compatibility is what matters. At AlmaLinux we still target RHEL minor versions and will continue to do so. We're a clone in the sense of full compatibility but a derivative in the sense that we can do some extra things now. This is far, far better for users and also let's us actually contribute upstream and h…

I'll say it depends. Sometimes the hardware or the software you run requires exact versions of the packages with some specific behavior to work correctly. These include drivers' parts on both kernel and userland, some specific application which requires a very specific version of a library, so on and so forth. I for one, can use Alma for 99% of the time instead of the old CentOS, but it's not always possible, if you'…

If you're running cutting edge datacenter hardware, CentOS is a better fit now than it ever has been before. It will be the first to get support for new hardware within a major version, ahead of RHEL and all it's derivatives. It is possible that some hardware doesn't get support within the current major version of any of these related distros, and you'll have to wait until the next major version, which CentOS also does first before the rest.

Re: IBM completes acquisition of HashiCorp

#380

Post by nunez »

linuxftw wrote: post #303
goodoldneon wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC, the lifecycle hook only prevents destruction of the resource if it needs to be replaced (e.g. change an immutable field). If you outright delete the resource declaration in code then it’s destroyed. I may be misremembering though

I find this statement to be technically correct, but practically untrue. Having worked in large terraform deployments using TFE, it's very easy for a resource to get deleted by mistake. Terraform's provider model is fundamentally broken. You cannot spin up a k8s server and then subsequently use the k8s modules to configure the server in the same workspace. You need a different workspace to import the outputs. The net…

I agree with you (this is something that OpenTofu is trying to fix), but the way I do k8s provisioning in Terraform is to have one module that brings up a cluster, another to print the cluster's Kubeconfig, then, finally, another to use the Kubeconfig to provision Kubernetes resources. It's not perfect but it gets the job done most of the time.
Post reply on HN