Infra.new is a DevOps platform designed to simplify infrastructure management. It offers a conversational interface (a "copilot") that allows users to describe their desired infrastructure in plain English, which the platform then translates into Terraform code. Crucially, Infra.new incorporates built-in guardrails and best practices to prevent common infrastructure misconfigurations and ensure security. This aims to make infrastructure provisioning and management more accessible and less error-prone, even for users with limited DevOps experience. The platform is currently in beta and focused on AWS.
Coolify is an open-source self-hosting platform aiming to be a simpler alternative to services like Heroku, Netlify, and Vercel. It offers a user-friendly interface for deploying various applications, including Docker containers, static websites, and databases, directly onto your own server or cloud infrastructure. Features include automatic HTTPS, a built-in Docker registry, database management, and support for popular frameworks and technologies. Coolify emphasizes ease of use and aims to empower developers to control their deployments and infrastructure without the complexity of traditional server management.
HN commenters generally express interest in Coolify, praising its open-source nature and potential as a self-hosted alternative to platforms like Heroku, Netlify, and Vercel. Several highlight the appeal of controlling infrastructure and avoiding vendor lock-in. Some question the complexity of self-hosting and express a desire for simpler setup and management. Comparisons are made to other similar tools, including CapRover, Dokku, and Railway, with discussions of their respective strengths and weaknesses. Concerns are raised about the long-term maintenance burden and the potential for Coolify to become overly complex. A few users share their positive experiences using Coolify, citing its ease of use and robust feature set. The sustainability of the project and its reliance on donations are also discussed.
Dagger introduces a portable, reproducible development and CI/CD environment using containers. It acts as a programmable shell, allowing developers to define their build pipelines as code using a simple, declarative language (CUE). This approach eliminates environment inconsistencies by executing every step within containers, from dependency installation to testing and deployment. Dagger caches build steps efficiently, speeding up development cycles, and its container-native nature ensures builds behave identically across different machines, from developer laptops to CI servers. This allows developers to focus on building software, not wrestling with environment configurations.
Hacker News users discussed Dagger's potential, its similarity to other tools, and its reliance on Go. Several commenters saw it as a promising evolution of build systems and CI/CD, praising its portability and potential to simplify complex workflows. Comparisons were made to Nix, BuildKit, and Earthly, with some arguing Dagger offered a more user-friendly approach using a familiar shell-like syntax. Concerns were raised about the Go dependency, potentially limiting its adoption in non-Go environments and adding complexity for tasks like cross-compilation. The dependence on a container runtime was also noted, while some appreciated the declarative nature of configurations, others expressed skepticism about its long-term practicality. There was also interest in its ability to interface with existing tools like Docker Compose and Kubernetes.
Terraform's lifecycle can sometimes lead to unexpected changes in attributes managed by providers, particularly when external factors modify them. This blog post explores strategies to prevent Terraform from reverting these intentional external modifications. It focuses on using ignore_changes within a resource's lifecycle block to specify the attributes to disregard during the plan and apply phases. The post demonstrates this with an AWS security group example, where an external tool might add ingress rules that Terraform shouldn't overwrite. It emphasizes the importance of carefully choosing which attributes to ignore, as it can mask legitimate changes and potentially introduce drift. The author recommends using ignore_changes sparingly and considering alternative solutions like null_resource or data sources to manage externally controlled resources when possible.
The Hacker News comments discuss practical approaches to the problem of Terraform providers sometimes changing attributes unexpectedly. Several users suggest using ignore_changes lifecycle arguments within Terraform configurations, emphasizing its utility but also cautioning about potential risks if misused. Others propose leveraging the null provider or generating local values to manage these situations, offering specific code examples. The discussion touches on the complexities of state management and the potential for drift, with recommendations for robust testing and careful planning. Some commenters highlight the importance of understanding why the provider is making changes, advocating for addressing the root cause rather than simply ignoring the symptoms. The thread also features a brief exchange on the benefits and drawbacks of the presented ignore_changes solution versus simply overriding the changed value every time, with arguments made for both sides.
This blog post details a method for securely deploying applications to on-premises IIS servers from Azure Pipelines without exposing credentials. The author leverages a self-hosted agent running on the target server, combined with a pre-configured deployment group. Instead of storing sensitive information directly in the pipeline, the approach uses Azure Key Vault to securely store the application pool password. The pipeline then retrieves this password during the deployment process and utilizes it with the powershell task in Azure Pipelines to update the application pool, ensuring credentials are not exposed in plain text within the pipeline or agent's environment. This setup enables automated deployments while mitigating the security risks associated with managing credentials for on-premises deployments.
The Hacker News comments generally praise the article for its practical approach to a complex problem (deploying to on-premise IIS from Azure DevOps). Several commenters appreciate the focus on simplicity and avoiding over-engineering, highlighting the use of built-in Azure DevOps features and PowerShell over more complex solutions. One commenter suggests using deployment groups instead of self-hosted agents for better security and manageability. Another emphasizes the importance of robust rollback procedures, which the article acknowledges but doesn't delve into deeply. A few commenters discuss alternative approaches, like using containers or configuration management tools, but acknowledge the validity of the author's simpler method for specific scenarios. Overall, the comments agree that the article provides a useful, real-world example of secure-enough deployments.
This blog post details setting up a bare-metal Kubernetes cluster on NixOS with Nvidia GPU support, focusing on simplicity and declarative configuration. It leverages NixOS's package management for consistent deployments across nodes and uses the toolkit's modularity to manage complex dependencies like CUDA drivers and container toolkits. The author emphasizes using separate NixOS modules for different cluster components—Kubernetes, GPU drivers, and container runtimes—allowing for easier maintenance and upgrades. The post guides readers through configuring the systemd unit for the Nvidia container toolkit, setting up the necessary kernel modules, and ensuring proper access for Kubernetes to the GPUs. Finally, it demonstrates deploying a GPU-enabled pod as a verification step.
Hacker News users discussed various aspects of running Nvidia GPUs on a bare-metal NixOS Kubernetes cluster. Some questioned the necessity of NixOS for this setup, suggesting that its complexity might outweigh its benefits, especially for smaller clusters. Others countered that NixOS provides crucial advantages for reproducible deployments and managing driver dependencies, particularly valuable in research and multi-node GPU environments. Commenters also explored alternatives like using Ansible for provisioning and debated the performance impact of virtualization. A few users shared their personal experiences, highlighting both successes and challenges with similar setups, including issues with specific GPU models and kernel versions. Several commenters expressed interest in the author's approach to network configuration and storage management, but the author didn't elaborate on these aspects in the original post.
Yoke aims to simplify Kubernetes deployments by managing infrastructure as code within the Kubernetes cluster itself. It leverages a GitOps approach, using a dedicated controller to synchronize the desired state from a Git repository directly to the cluster. This eliminates the external dependencies and complex tooling often associated with traditional Infrastructure as Code solutions, making deployments more streamlined and self-contained within the Kubernetes ecosystem. Yoke supports multiple cloud providers and offers features like diff previews and automated rollouts for improved control and visibility. This approach keeps the entire deployment process within the familiar Kubernetes context, simplifying management and reducing the operational overhead of infrastructure provisioning and updates.
HN commenters generally praise Yoke's approach to simplifying Kubernetes management by abstracting away YAML files and providing a more intuitive, code-based interface. Several users highlight the potential for improved developer experience and reduced cognitive overhead when dealing with Kubernetes. Some express concerns about the potential for vendor lock-in, the limitations of relying on generated YAML, and debugging complexity. Others suggest alternative tools and approaches, including Crossplane and Pulumi, while acknowledging that Yoke appears to offer a simpler, more streamlined solution for specific use cases. A few commenters also point out the parallels between Yoke and other developer tools like Ansible and Terraform, emphasizing the ongoing trend towards higher-level abstractions for managing infrastructure.
IBM has finalized its acquisition of HashiCorp, aiming to create a comprehensive, end-to-end hybrid cloud platform. This combination brings together IBM's existing hybrid cloud portfolio with HashiCorp's infrastructure automation tools, including Terraform, Vault, Consul, and Nomad. The goal is to provide clients with a streamlined experience for building, deploying, and managing applications across any environment, from on-premises data centers to multiple public clouds. This acquisition is intended to solidify IBM's position in the hybrid cloud market and accelerate the adoption of its hybrid cloud platform.
HN commenters are largely skeptical of IBM's ability to successfully integrate HashiCorp, citing IBM's history of failed acquisitions and expressing concern that HashiCorp's open-source ethos will be eroded. Several predict a talent exodus from HashiCorp, and some anticipate a shift towards competing products like Pulumi, Ansible, and Terraform alternatives. Others question the strategic rationale behind the acquisition, suggesting IBM overpaid and may struggle to monetize HashiCorp's offerings. The potential for increased vendor lock-in and higher prices are also raised as concerns. A few commenters express a cautious hope that IBM might surprise them, but overall sentiment is negative.
Massdriver, a Y Combinator W22 startup, launched a self-service cloud infrastructure platform designed to eliminate the complexities and delays typically associated with provisioning and managing cloud resources. It aims to streamline infrastructure deployment by providing pre-built, configurable building blocks and automating tasks like networking, security, and scaling. This allows developers to quickly deploy applications across multiple cloud providers without needing deep cloud expertise or dealing with tedious infrastructure management. Massdriver handles the underlying complexity, freeing developers to focus on building and deploying their applications.
Hacker News users discussed Massdriver's potential, pricing, and target audience. Some expressed excitement about the "serverless-like experience" for deploying infrastructure, particularly the focus on simplifying operations and removing boilerplate. Concerns were raised about vendor lock-in and the unclear pricing structure, with some comparing it to other Infrastructure-as-Code (IaC) tools like Terraform. Several commenters questioned the target demographic, wondering if it was aimed at developers unfamiliar with IaC or experienced DevOps engineers seeking a more streamlined workflow. The lack of open-sourcing was also a point of contention for some. Others shared positive experiences from the beta program, praising the platform's ease of use and speed.
A new Terraform provider allows for infrastructure-as-code management of Hrui (formerly TP-Link Omada) SDN-capable network switches, offering a cost-effective alternative to enterprise-grade solutions. This provider enables users to define and automate the configuration of Hrui-based networks, including VLANs, port settings, and other network features, directly within their Terraform deployments. This simplifies network management and improves consistency, particularly for those working with budget-conscious networking setups using these affordable switches.
HN users generally expressed interest in the terraform-provider-hrui, praising its potential for managing inexpensive hardware. Several commenters discussed the trade-offs of using cheaper, less feature-rich switches compared to enterprise-grade options, acknowledging the validity of both approaches depending on the use case. Some users questioned the long-term viability and support of the targeted hardware, while others shared their positive experiences with similar budget-friendly networking equipment. The project's open-source nature and potential for community contributions were also highlighted as positive aspects. A few commenters offered specific suggestions for improvement, such as expanding device compatibility and adding support for VLANs.
Summary of Comments ( 16 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43763026
HN users generally expressed interest in Infra.new, praising its focus on safety and guardrails, especially for preventing accidental cloud cost overruns. Several commenters compared it favorably to existing infrastructure-as-code tools like Terraform, highlighting its potential for simplifying deployments and reducing complexity. Some questioned the depth of its current feature set and integrations, while others sought clarification on the pricing model. A few users with cloud management experience offered specific suggestions for improvement, including better handling of state management and drift detection. Overall, the reception seemed positive, with many expressing a desire to try the product.
The Hacker News post for "Launch HN: Infra.new (YC W23) – DevOps copilot with guardrails built in" has a moderate number of comments, sparking a discussion around the tool's functionality, target audience, and potential impact.
Several commenters express interest in the concept of "guardrails" for infrastructure automation, highlighting the potential for reducing errors and improving security. One commenter specifically asks about the implementation of these guardrails and how they differ from existing policy-as-code solutions like Open Policy Agent (OPA). This leads to a brief discussion about the complexities of integrating such guardrails seamlessly into existing workflows and the importance of clear visibility and control.
Another thread of discussion revolves around the target audience for Infra.new. Some commenters question whether the tool is primarily aimed at simplifying infrastructure management for developers who lack deep DevOps expertise, while others see it as a potential productivity booster even for experienced DevOps engineers. This leads to speculation about the pricing model and whether it will be accessible to smaller teams or individual developers.
One commenter raises the concern of vendor lock-in, questioning the portability of configurations and the potential difficulties of migrating away from the platform in the future. This prompts a discussion about the importance of open standards and interoperability in the DevOps ecosystem.
A few commenters share their personal experiences with similar tools and offer suggestions for improvement, such as better integration with existing infrastructure-as-code tools like Terraform and enhanced support for different cloud providers.
Finally, there's some skepticism expressed about the marketing language used in the launch announcement, with some commenters finding the term "DevOps copilot" to be overly hyped and potentially misleading. They argue that true "copilot" functionality would require a much deeper understanding of the user's intent and context.
Overall, the comments reflect a mixture of curiosity, cautious optimism, and healthy skepticism about the potential of Infra.new. While many see the value in simplifying infrastructure management and enhancing security, there are also concerns about practical implementation, pricing, and potential vendor lock-in.