6 ms·

If you look at it from a proprietary software company (which is what Hashicorp is now), it's totally expected and understandable. Why should they spend money su

If you look at it from a proprietary software company (which is what Hashicorp is now), it's totally expected and understandable. Why should they spend money supporting extra load on their infrastructure from people that are not directly paying for that? It makes perfect sense. Is it short-sighed? If you think they will go down in market share from now on, yes. But Hashicorp probably thinks it won't or it wouldn't have made the change in the first place. For them, it's all the way up from here.

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
> Why should they spend money supporting extra load on their infrastructure from people that are not directly paying for that? There same logic applies to users; at this point, I have to assume that the only reason that Hashicorp is providing anything to people who aren't actively giving them money is to try and get money from them later. This is also one of the reasons I'm abandoning them ASAP; now that the money squeeze has started, it's not like they're going to stop.
- berniedurfee 3y ago
  Not to mention the number of community contributions is going to plummet. At some point third party and independent module and provider developers will need to decide whether to cross-support both tools. I don’t think Hashi is going to go out of their way to make life easy for Terrafork. Cross-compatibility won’t last long.
paulgb 3y ago
From my point of view, controlling the canonical namespace is a form of soft power in the ecosystem. Since as the post says, the actual files are hosted on GitHub, the cost of the extra load on their infrastructure is real but probably not material to a company of their size -- as I understand it, it's more like running a DNS service than a file host. So it _seems_ (the word I used above as well) from my perspective that they’re giving up a bunch of soft power for little gain, but it's very possible that I'm either wrong about the value of the soft power, or wrong about the cost of running the infra.
- StopHammoTime 3y ago
  I published a terraform provider when the registry in beta while working at a startup. They do some “value ads” like code signing and such, but you’re right - it can functionally be replaced by the GitHub release page.

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago

> Why should they spend money supporting extra load on their infrastructure from people that are not directly paying for that? There same logic applies to users; at this point, I have to assume that the only reason that Hashicorp is providing anything to people who aren't actively giving them money is to try and get money from them later. This is also one of the reasons I'm abandoning them ASAP; now that the money squeeze has started, it's not like they're going to stop.

berniedurfee 3y ago
Not to mention the number of community contributions is going to plummet. At some point third party and independent module and provider developers will need to decide whether to cross-support both tools. I don’t think Hashi is going to go out of their way to make life easy for Terrafork. Cross-compatibility won’t last long.

paulgb 3y ago

From my point of view, controlling the canonical namespace is a form of soft power in the ecosystem. Since as the post says, the actual files are hosted on GitHub, the cost of the extra load on their infrastructure is real but probably not material to a company of their size -- as I understand it, it's more like running a DNS service than a file host. So it _seems_ (the word I used above as well) from my perspective that they’re giving up a bunch of soft power for little gain, but it's very possible that I'm either wrong about the value of the soft power, or wrong about the cost of running the infra.

StopHammoTime 3y ago
I published a terraform provider when the registry in beta while working at a startup. They do some “value ads” like code signing and such, but you’re right - it can functionally be replaced by the GitHub release page.