3 ms·
It's a cute name, but as a consultant, I don't think this is going to help me convince technology leaders to adopt this project over Terraform.
by bshacklett 3y ago
It's a cute name, but as a consultant, I don't think this is going to help me convince technology leaders to adopt this project over Terraform.
- bhouston 3y agoI think one needs to see if there are bug fixes and it keeps up with the evolution of technology over time.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y agoWell no, the selling point is the license not the name
- bshacklett 3y agoTo what audience? For someone in a leadership position who is responsible for running their organization, optics are very important, and a silly name can hurt. We're already talking about a fork by a lesser-known organization with no track record. The silly name doesn't help.
- altairprime 3y ago“You won’t have to financially support the project in order to benefit from it” is the usual selling point. Corporations will overlook a cute name if it’s free, relative to another product. If your corporation(s) don’t resell service deriving from Terraform, then there’s no financial reason to switch, since they’re not subject to the licensing risk — at which point it doesn’t matter what the name of the project is, either. It’s still possible to make an argument to switch based on “community exodus from the commercially-supported variant”, which is at least more likely to be of interest to a classical C-corp than “ethical duty to open source”, but if opentofu contributions can be mixed into existing terraform, then that might not stand up well either. If the corporation makes a decision solely based on (for example) hostility to vegetarians, then the name will be relevant — but that’s an outcome that is too irrational to account for.