shall we begin the terraform stories?

terraforming things is nice. the vcloud director provider of Terraform is also nice..ish.

for fucks sake, why do folks at VMware release a provider for use in fucking production, that only does support barely a third of all features, including the distributed logical router with all its funkyfuck features? nsx-t is nice, but did you folks remember all of those customers, who do run the old nsx-v?
you've decided that nsx-v shall be put to sleep. okay. fine. nice.
but don't you think, that the version 3.3.ass should support all major resources of your product, including old nsx-v features like the fucking DLR?!

sorry, but a product, that only supports ⅓ of all features, that can be managed in UI, only deserves a RC label at best. calling this a 3.3.ass is bold. you can't even setup a dhcp pool for a defined network. dafuq people..?! (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

  • 1
    Dang, that sucks. I use Terraform as well, but almost entirely in AWS or Azure and their providers are much more mature.

    I did have to spin up something on a Kubernetes SaaS service though, and it was horrible. Provider is basically a thin wrapper around their CLI and all the actual configuration is in YAML.
  • 0
    @EmberQuill yea, it sucks. hard. but hey, at least we can manage some things on the list.
    if I had the time to take dive into go, I would love to contribute to the provider. it's open source, which is nice. but I just don't have the fucking time to unfuck things for us, which sucks even harder than the maturity niveau of the provider.

    the thing is, that the vcloud director does not have as many users as aws or azure. therefore these folks don't invest much time on it, I guess.

    haven't been able to play around with aws with it, but some colleagues of me know some things around there.
Add Comment