+1
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 5:42 PM Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> wrote: > +1 > > See the post below which I agree with > > On 16/04/2021 02:53, Nathan McGarvey wrote: > > +1 > > > > I've yet to find something as a viable alternative to Terraform that > > allows flexible switching between cloud providers (or even co-using) > > without huge code rewrites. One of Cloudstack's big sellers is it's > > relatively simple and stable for setup and maintenance (not > > over-abstracted, low cost to entry, can be installed without direct > > internet access for private clouds, etc.). The downside is that, much > > like every other cloud API, it requires a *lot* of custom code to > > integrate for end-users/developers, so folks tend to migrate to whoever > > has the fastest and lowest cost of adoption instead of ease of setup and > > maintenance. > > > > Many [citation needed] folks are using Terraform (brief Internet > > research: IEEE, Whole Foods, Udemy, Uber, and many more) > > > > As a potential alternative, if a an AWS/Azure/GCP/whatever > > compatibility layer or similar was maintained to the point that you > > could just document to use that Terraform provider, then this becomes > > moot. (Though that is really just picking which abstraction layer to > > maintain, so maybe not being tied to another company is good.) > > > > I also keep running across people mis-understand Terraform a lot. It > > doesn't [usually] compete with puppet/ansible/chef nor things like > > nagios/bro/solarwinds/elastic: > > > > 1. Terraform is used to provision from nothing. It is an external > > tool that interacts with the cloud APIs for everything from instance > > provisioning, volume management, and networking, etc. > > 2. Ansible/puppet/chef to do stateful configuration management and > > similar operations after provisioning (in most cases). > > 3. Elastic/nagios/bro/solarwinds/whatever for continuous monitoring > > for things that aren't cloud-native and need stability because they > > can't just be "re-spawned" on failure. > > > > > > Thanks, > > -Nathan McGarvey > > > > P.s.: If voting +2 were allowed, I'd be a +3. :) > > > > > > On 4/15/21 4:05 AM, Rohit Yadav wrote: > >> Hi All, > >> > >> Following the discussion thread on Terraform [1], I would like to start > a vote to gather consensus on the following actions: > >> > >> 1. Create a new "cloudstack-terraform-provider" repository based on > Apache Licence v2.0 using re-licensed codebase of the archived/former > terraform cloudstack provider repository: > https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack (note: > re-licensing from MPL to AL will be done by Hashicorp) > >> 2. Request ASF infra to enable issues, PR, and wiki features on the > repository > >> 3. Work with the community towards any further maintenance, > development, and releases of the provider > >> 4. Publish official releases on the official registry [2] if/after > Apache CloudStack project gets a verified account (published by PMC members > with access to the registry, or following guidelines from ASF infra if > they've any) > >> > >> The vote will be open for 120 hours, until Wed 21 April 2021. > >> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to > indicate "(binding)" with their vote? > >> > >> [ ] +1 approve > >> [ ] +0 no opinion > >> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) > >> > >> [1] https://markmail.org/message/iuggxin7kj6ri4hb > >> [2] https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers > >> > >> > >> Regards. > >> > >> rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com > >> www.shapeblue.com > >> 3 London Bridge Street, 3rd floor, News Building, London SE1 9SGUK > >> @shapeblue > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- Daan
