[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)