- cross-posted to:
- devops@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- devops@programming.dev
HashiCorp recently changed Terraform from an open source model to something that requires licensing, so folks got together, forked the code, and created OpenTF.
HashiCorp recently changed Terraform from an open source model to something that requires licensing, so folks got together, forked the code, and created OpenTF.
How much do people contribute to Terraform itself as opposed to a Terraform provider, I wonder? I’m biased because I’ve personally contributed to providers (and not Terraform itself), but I perceive providers to really be the meat of the product. For the most part, Terraform largely is just a framework for reconciling resources, but most actual functionality is in those resources themselves, for which all functionality is provided by the provider. e.g., if I wanna make a load balancer and a bunch of VMs, Terraform provides the glue that loads providers and can specify the dependency of the VMs on the LB, but the whole creating of the VMs and LB as well as the diffing and updating are all in the provider.
That’s not to excuse what HashiCorp did, but just I suspect a lot of what people view as “Terraform” isn’t actually the part that HashiCorp controls.