711–720 of 760 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Never sign a CLA! The only reason they ask for such is to relicense, and the only reason they would relicense if they are already foss is to become proprietary. Linux doesn't require a CLA for contributions. These open source cosplay clowns do.
https://elinux.org/Developer_Certificate_Of_Origin
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My biggest issue with terraform is concept of state file. It seems that Pulumi continues on this model. I wish someone came up with innovative idea of not needing state file.
this is difficult for me to think about in the same way as trying to picture a 4th dimension. surely, state needs to be tracked somehow. what would an alternative even be?
Why? There are many possibilities, just not that efficient. One of them would involve tagging. The problem with that approach is that not all resources are taggable, and it would take longer to query them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your statement was "Nomad is a dead product" without knowing anything about the product. That's something to consider next time you make such statements.
I think I know enough to make the statement, actually. I don't know enough to tell some random person not use it. Think about that. I at least uphold the integrity to be honest with you!
That said, I guess time will tell. I doubt the license make such a big difference. Hashicorp cannot be that stupid (to offend the open source community). Also, a product is not necessarily "dead" even it's mostly used by corporates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your statement was "Nomad is a dead product" without knowing anything about the product. That's something to consider next time you make such statements.
I think I know enough to make the statement, actually. I don't know enough to tell some random person not use it. Think about that. I at least uphold the integrity to be honest with you!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think I know enough to make the statement, actually. I don't know enough to tell some random person not use it. Think about that. I at least uphold the integrity to be honest with you!
I appreciate your honesty, but blanket statements are usually backed up with an actual reason, which you failed to provide initially. Hence my reaction. That said, I guess time will tell. I doubt the license make such a big difference. Hashicorp cannot be that stupid (to offend the open source community). Also, a product is not necessarily "dead" even it's mostly used by corporates.
Also, let's keep in context that HCP has an Accumulated Deficit of .8 Billion dollars, and it loses 50 million a Quarter, they're nowhere near becoming profitable, and changes like this, switching from MPL to BSL is just the beginning.
They now have a shit ton of code across all their projects, and they're never going to be able to maintain it all, given their need to make profit.
I'm not going to write a story for you explaining everything in detail, sir.
It's just some forum where I can freely voice my opinion. It doesn't need to be backed by a book of reasons, nor does my loose opinion in such a context undermine my integrity in the slightest.
Cheers
Funny how @mitchellh has decided not to join the conversation. Pretty sure he had the ultimate input on this decision, and historically he's engaged with HN directly. Hmm. Overall it seems like a loser move. Look what happened to Elasticsearch - to me and most others, ES no longer exists. I've happily moved on to OpenSearch and not looked back at poor kimchi. Due to their own actions, Elasticsearch is no longer relev…
> Trust takes years to build, seconds to break, and forever to repair.
Don't agree with that. That's really aggressive man. Hashicorp has built some awesome stuff, and tried to make a business based on Open Source. They haven't broken any contracts or done anything immoral - it's their choice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this is difficult for me to think about in the same way as trying to picture a 4th dimension. surely, state needs to be tracked somehow. what would an alternative even be?
Querying the cloud provider apis for current state? Go to the actual source of truth? I'm sure there are complications i don't care to see here, but why is "this is what is actually deployed" not the default case?
that’s part of the case for a centralized state, to have an additional place that describes what should exist and what it looks like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pulumi Founder/CEO here. The blog post is disingenuous. We tried many times to contribute upstream fixes to Terraform providers, but HashiCorp would never accept them. So we've had to maintain forks. They lost their OSS DNA a long time ago, and this move just puts the final nail in the coffin. Thankfully over time, they already pushed responsibility for most Terraform providers back onto their partners, so I'm hopefu…
>We tried many times to contribute upstream fixes to Terraform providers, but HashiCorp would never accept them. So we've had to maintain forks. They lost their OSS DNA a long time ago, and this move just puts the final nail in the coffin. OSS doesn't mean that you have to accept any PRs that showed up in your repo, nor does it mean that you have to let a competitor steer your project simply because you're building i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The paid features have nothing to do with the providers; They absolutely do. If I use AWS and Pulumi could not deploy to AWS, well I'm certainly not going to buy Pulumi Cloud, am I? If I use multiple cloud providers and Pulumi doesn't support all of them, I'm unlikely to invest further in Pulumi Cloud, right? The providers determine whether I can even use the tool to do what I want in the first place. The providers…
> They absolutely do. No, they absolutely do not. Pulumi - as in the actual tool , not its developers' equivalent to Terraform Cloud - would still exist and would have used those providers regardless of whether or not there's some Pulumi equivalent to Terraform Cloud. Pulumi also would've existed (and resulted in indirect profits via Pulumi Cloud) had that provider ecosystem not yet existed; it just would've been Pul…
This is idealism.
The reality is Pulumi's providers have no value for Terraform, which already built and curated its own ecosystem after years of time and effort. Then, Pulumi can spin up a directly competing product in a fraction of the time by reusing all of that work. So I understand the motivation for the license change.
Circling back to your original comment which spawned this thread:
> Like, has anyone of any significance used a Hashicorp product to meaningfully compete with Hashicorp?
The answer is unequivocally "yes". Pulumi has. And Pulumi can continue to do so, apparently. Terraform providers continue to be MPL-licensed.
Another example I learned of was IBM Cloud Secrets Manager, which is basically reselling Vault: https://www.ibm.com/cloud/secrets-manager
With IBM Cloud® Secrets Manager, you can create secrets dynamically and lease them to applications while you control access from a single location. Built on open source HashiCorp Vault, Secrets Manager helps you get the data isolation of a dedicated environment with the benefits of a public cloud.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is these companies almost universally could not exist without open source software that allowed them to commercialize things. It is impossible for the vast majority of companies to ever "give back" as much to open source as they profit off of it - from the Linux kernel, all the GNU stuff, the nginx or apache webservers hosting webpages and API access, the haproxy load balancers, the corosync/pacemaker the…
A very thoughtful argument, thank you! To me, the difference is that these are all building blocks rather than standalone products. I think of these commercial products as making sense for standalone services, rather than libraries and other building blocks. But also: I think the business model that built all those open source building blocks has always been pretty shitty, relying on a lot of altruistic un- or poorly…
But, let's take just apache and nginx as an example: Lots of people offer just webhosting as a service. It's gotten less and less common now, with things like Squarespace, Shopify, Medium, etc. etc. etc., but once upon a time there were tens of thousands of companies that were making all their money by providing storage/compute/networking and a place to upload your HTML files, and then later adding in additional services like PHP and other scripting languages, MySQL for database hosting, etc.
Now, the context here is a bit different here, of course, particularly for Apache httpd. But Nginx has Nginx Plus, MySQL AB would license you a closed-source version or do the usual support/consulting/etc. stuff. But it's not hard to imagine a world where they could have easily said "Hey you know we're experts in running this stuff, we should just run it for people and charge them" - just like we see with a lot of these "open source" companies today.
There was never a general outcry about tons of businesses making money just hosting these open source services, even though the vast majority never contributed financially or otherwise to these open source projects. The only real difference I can see between then and now is simply what path the companies behind the projects, where applicable, have taken to monetize. Would the internet be a better place if MySQL AB moved to offering hosting as a service and put MySQL on the BSL, preventing all of these webhosting companies from having existed? If F5 had done it after acquiring Nginx? Cheap and plentiful webhosting is a big part of what grew the internet so quickly, particularly before the 'Web 2.0' days of social media sites centralizing so much of the traffic on the internet into a handful of places.
> But I don't think demanding that companies making useful services also be subjected to a shitty business model is a good solution.
Well, I'm not demanding a company do anything. I'm just saying that the internet as it exists today, including all of these companies we're talking about, would not exist if earlier on people had made the same choices they are. Open source is not about guaranteeing a viable business model to companies - it doesn't care about your business - it's about ensuring certain freedoms in software. And the internet we're discussing this on exists because of those freedoms it guaranteed.
If you can't build a viable business when abiding by those freedoms for whatever reason, then sure - go build proprietary software. I'm not going to call it or you evil. But I do take issue with a company using open source as a method to gain adoption, additional contributions, mindshare, etc. and then no longer being open source while talking about how they are an "evolution" of it. You're not an evolution of open source if you're removing freedoms.