4 ms·
Well, I would say in this case because it's fundamentally an "integration ecosystem" platform. The success of terraform is dependent on its deep support of clou
by AtlasBarfed 6y ago
Well, I would say in this case because it's fundamentally an "integration ecosystem" platform. The success of terraform is dependent on its deep support of cloud resources, across multiple cloud providers.
Also, this isn't a space they own. It is chock-full of established players (Puppet, Salt, Ansible, Chef).
Hashicorp thus has two choices: rapidly fix/implement requested improvements, or handhold to get as many participants in the ecosystem as possible.
Otherwise, TF will be a spark in the pan, superseded, or restricted to niches. Where I work it already is being relegated only to security groups and network resources, despite armies of stateless HTTP API servers in our microservice smorgasborg.
The real question is, why aren't the multi-hundred-billion-dollar cloud providers ponying up resources for these platforms, which really are the only way to force multiply and scale up on them?
- caymanjim 6y agoYeah, AWS would be well-served to own the provider themselves. Sure, they would prefer people use CloudFormation/CDK, but they still get vendor lock-in if they support Terraform. In fact, they'd probably get even more vendor lock-in. As it stands, the Terraform provider is full of annoying bugs. It's still very usable, but if you dive deep, especially with newer AWS services, you're in for some headaches.