Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It's unfortunate that this is tied to AWS, while the industry is moving towards a cloud agnostic approach to hosting.

That being said, it seems like an interesting project to keep an eye on.




I'm in agreement with mpdehaan2 here.

By sticking with a single cloud provider you get a lot of benefits. One of the more major benefits is cost, as you can do things like reserved instance in EC2. Another major benefit of sticking with a single provider is that you get to use solutions that only that provider has, which in this case is KMS, DynamoDB and IAM.

The biggest downside of being cloud agnostic is that you're stuck with the smallest combination of features that all of the clouds provide.


It seems like Confidant can and will be great for customers using AWS, and frankly it's nice to see open source projects built using AWS services, but is not a complete black box (like many AWS services themselves). I also totally agree that utilizing the tools provided by your hosting provider can be majorly beneficial; however, I think that sometimes teams employ hacky solutions so they can use a hosted service from AWS (or similar), in which case they end up with technical debt and the inability to change directions in the future.

As you said, until tools exist that offer operability between clouds, users will be stuck with the smallest combination of tools. I do however believe such a day is coming.


I'd say the opposite - the industry is in general being a lot more comfortable with investing in AWS to the point of lockin being acceptable now. More people are treating cloud providers less like a big pool of IP addresses.

Not saying it's a good or bad thing, but attend AWS reInvent or something and it's pretty easy to percieve huge uptake.

If you adopt extra management stacks running on or against your cloud you lose a lot of the benefits.


That's an interesting perspective and observation. I've always found lock-in to be a bit scary, and I've heard this echoed by a number of colleagues & companies. No one can deny the usefulness of tools provided by hosting providers, namely AWS; however, to me, architecting a system in such a way where you are literally unable to jump ship when the need arises (compliance, cost, etc) is unacceptable. With hybrid / multi cloud more of a reality with the existence of tools like Docker (and others), there needs to exist sets of tools capable of handling such variability. I digress, this really belongs in an entirely different thread.


We tried running on three cloud service providers while connecting back to our own data center (corporate stuff) at the same time, for a couple years, because of the whole "cloud agnostic". The code requires us to be compatible with OpenStack and AWS. Trust me, no matter what people say about the compatibility of some of the components between OpenStack and AWS, you cannot do the AWS-way 100% in OpenStack. In the end I got a pile of shit code with a lot of workaround and condition.

Sure Heat is like a comparable version of CloudFormation, but you can't do what you did in AWS and translate to Heat. OpenStack doesn't have all the services that AWS has. Not every product (and not every API in a product of AWS) works 100% with CloudFormation. If you are running an old release of OpenStack, you are more fucked in that case.

We are now moving our cloud infrastructure to AWS entirely so no more "it works in this environment", or "they sort of work and sort of different because of X and Y tool not comparable."

The right attitude should be "do one thing well, and improve." Architect "right" and than unlock yourself whenever possible. The same goes to people migrating to Docker or any container technology. Dockerfile is a lock-in. You still have to move back to regular shell script later if you drop Docker.


> Dockerfile is a lock-in. You still have to move back to regular shell script later if you drop Docker.

Not really a big problem there, since Dockerfiles are pretty much shell scripts :)


I would tend to agree here to some extent. I think you have to be careful what you lock into. We use RDS and Elasticache but if push came to shove we could easily spin up our own db instances elsewhere or use some other managed service. That being said, locking into something as integral about how you handle your secrets is a big decision. One that when you make, you must be sure you are going to be in AWS for long haul. The reason is how you handle your secrets will touch how everything in your infrastructure is deployed. Migrating to a new system is not easy. (Trust me I am trying to migrate to Vault) For this, I would prefer something less rigid like Vault but I think this tool seems pretty cool.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: