The wild goose chase part I see as a major exaggeration. It's interesting, I use BOSH + Terraform all the time, wherein BOSH exposes GCP's CPU/memory flexibili

The wild goose chase part I see as a major exaggeration. It's interesting, I use BOSH + Terraform all the time, wherein BOSH exposes GCP's CPU/memory flexibility, the various Azure NIC/LB/availability set options, AWS' different disk types, etc. Those differences can be modularized, so that 95% of your configuration templates are identical across clouds, and the last 5% maps to specifics. I'm sure it's not all that different from Terraform w/ modules, though my main problem with Terraform is that it doesn't constrain you into a "do the right thing" path, it's too easy to create a mess. Anyway, IMO these kinds of differences really aren't hard to handle and it's valid to prioritize cloud-independent configuration if that's what you want/need. It allows the main configuration and installable software to be cloud-independent, dramatically easing testing. We're seeing this drive with the flocking to Kubernetes which enables cloud-independent networking, storage, and compute. I think differing opinions on this are normal/fine, but i have to wonder why the single-cloud proponents use words like "snake oil" as if to completely discredit a different set of priorities.