[HN Gopher] Infrastructure Manager: Provision Google Cloud Resou... ___________________________________________________________________ Infrastructure Manager: Provision Google Cloud Resources with Terraform Author : jen20 Score : 52 points Date : 2023-09-17 19:44 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (cloud.google.com) (TXT) w3m dump (cloud.google.com) | varun_chopra wrote: | Terraform's license change suddenly makes sense. | pm90 wrote: | Wonder if they have to pay licensing fees to hashicorp for using | terraform this way. It's essentially replacing terraform cloud | for GCP resources. | emptysongglass wrote: | Which is why it's all the more puzzling Google didn't spring | for OpenTF here. They single-handedly could have proven it as | the fork of choice but instead they're paying into HashiCorp's | bad decision? | kevindamm wrote: | Probably because development was already well under way | several months ago. | | But I agree, explicit support for OpenTF here would have been | really nice to see, even if it delayed launch a little. | time0ut wrote: | I wish AWS would do this and deprecate CloudFormation. | klooney wrote: | I haven't used Cloudformation in three years, how's it doing | these days? | anyoneamous wrote: | I see a roughly even split of people using CFn, Terraform and | (Python) CDK. | | AWS shot themselves in the foot by making the Python version | of CDK second-tier after Typescript; IaC is still done by | DevOps people far more often than application people, and | DevOps people use Python. | | Another gripe is the number of services and new features | which launch without CFn support, which also blocks CDK | support; when Terraform supports a new platform feature | before the vendors own tools do, that's a sign the product | teams are being driven by the wrong metrics. | likeabbas wrote: | Idk if I buy this. I'm mostly a backend service developer, | but my team manages our own infra using CDK and we love it. | And we're glad they used typescript as it's a fantastic | language. | paulddraper wrote: | CDK has kept it very alive. | | (But there's CDKTF, FYI.) | slavetologic wrote: | CDK is amazing, you shouldn't be writing cloud formation | anymore | [deleted] | shepherdjerred wrote: | Just use CDK. By far it's the best way to manage AWS infra; AWS | also uses it internally. | tpmx wrote: | Or just buy Pulumi... j/k (I'd hate for such an awesome tool to | get AWS-ized.) | stilwelldotdev wrote: | I figured something like this is what drove Hashicorp's licensing | decision, but thought it would be Amazon. | holografix wrote: | So Deployment Manager is finally dead? | candiddevmike wrote: | It's still in the console, this one is not (yet) | LVB wrote: | There are numerous comments here about the licensing change and | that this could be related, but HashiCorp announced this at | Google Cloud Next (and on their own blog), so it seems like a | fairly standard partnership arrangement. | type_Ben_struct wrote: | Licensing decision aside, I don't feel a lot of sympathy for | Hashicorp here. I think this is different than other scenarios | where big MSP's sell tools based 99% or open source software. | | This service will largely be used for deployments on Google | Cloud, for which Google invests a lot of development effort in | maintaining their own provider. It's not like there's not already | significant contribution from Google to the code base. | jen20 wrote: | Why would you assume that there is no license in place for | this? | type_Ben_struct wrote: | They may well do, but to be honest my fundamental point | extends beyond just Google. Hashicorp benefits extensively | from third parties maintaining their own providers. | mkl95 wrote: | Is there anything particularly painful about working with the | Google Cloud Terraform provider? If there isn't, I would rather | use OpenTF with that provider and manage state myself. | dilyevsky wrote: | So from a product perspective they basically manage tfstate, you | get to use "pre-packaged and recommended" providers (not clear if | say aws provider is allowed) and they slapped iam to it? Seems | like another one of those frankenstein cloud designs... | candiddevmike wrote: | This is definitely half baked IMO. Not a whole lot of benefits | over running TF with Cloud Build and a storage bucket. | Definitely have more control and better UX than the weird hoops | you jump through to set this up. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-09-17 23:00 UTC)