After watching this I kind of disagree. Wales said he didn’t care multiple times. Calling it the “dumbest question” is childish, yes. Walking out of an interview that was going nowhere is not childish.
I personally think writing Sanger out of Wikipedia history (as in this 25 year celebration montage thing) is quite lame. But I also think pressing Wales on this when he says “you can say whatever you want” is also quite lame. No one is obligated to sit with an interviewer while the interviewer tries to pick a fight.
You missed the part where Wales called a fact an "opinion". Wales could have said "I don't dispute the facts of that case. I see myself as the founder, but I won't argue against other interpretations. Lets move past it." Instead he immediately became defensive, even angry.
The interviewer is right to press on the basic facts and Wales was wrong to ragequit, especially since the exchange lasted less than 45 seconds(!)
I don't see this as a political victim issue: I can see Sanger as an asshole while also seeing Wales as weak.
> You missed the part where Wales called a fact an "opinion".
Has Wales actually disputed the objective facts of the matter?
I did not take his comment to mean “it’s an opinion whether Sanger worked on Wikipedia from the beginning” but “it’s an opinion whether that qualifies him as a cofounder”.
> Wales could have said "I don't dispute the facts of that case. I see myself as the founder, but I won't argue against other interpretations. Lets move past it."
That is essentially what he said. He called himself the founder, then when the interviewer probed, said it’s a dumb question, then said he doesn’t care, then said the interviewer can frame it however he wants, then said again that he doesn’t care.
He said what you think he should’ve said. He just didn’t use your exact words.
> The interviewer is right to press on the basic facts and Wales was wrong to ragequit, especially since the exchange lasted less than 45 seconds(!)
What “basic facts” did he press on? I heard no facts or questions about facts. He used the word “facts” while pressing Wales specifically about calling himself the founder.
Is there a convenient way to limit the number of CRDs that Crossplane provider installs? For instance, someone wants to expose XRD only for one specific AWS service and completely ignore other AWS services
Crossplane maintainer here -- this has come up a number of times in the community, but ultimately we would prefer for the system to be able to handle an arbitrary number of CRDs, whether they are being used or not (as evidenced by the work outlined in this post). Moving to filtering CRDs that a provider installs can lead to a confusing experience where the presence of a given package does not mean the same thing across clusters, which also complicates the dependency model Crossplane packages implement. We view Composition + RBAC as the mechanisms to define what a given entity can access (i.e. the API line).
I can actually say that not supporting this really does hinder crossplane adoption. At work we operate large shared kubernetes clusters. A team attempted to use crossplane and we immediately had to remove it from our clusters immediately because it made kubectl and a variety of other tools completely unusable due to all the rate limiting and how frequently it refreshes cached discovery data. They wanted to use crossplane for like 10-20 of its supported object types. Instead, they had to actually run crossplane inside of a vcluster because there is no option to filter the number of CRDs it creates.
So while I can get behind this sentiment philosophically, until something changes upstream in kubernetes, this makes it really difficult to use crossplane in a cluster used for anything else and it probably makes sense to offer a workaround until then. Also, in practice, any security conscious users running crossplane in production are probably going to give it AWS credentials scoped to only the resources they want to allow it to manage, so even if you do install all of the CRDs in the cluster, 90% of them won't work due to their AWS credentials anyway.
Thank you for an excellent post on Crossplane usage in real life! This piece of technology is just starting its way to production systems, but it's definitely a great way to manage application infrastructure.
As far as I understand, use cases for Crossplane - it supposed to be used together with CD systems, such as ArgoCD. ArgoCD on its own add quite a lot of CRDs to cluster, so the problem highlighted in the article is very relevant to heavy used clusters
reply