[outoftacos]

I worry a lot about how these megacorps will treat "collaborators" vs "non collaborators" in the coming years. Obviously you can't just outright buy everyone, but they seem to be increasingly abusive towards technologies and teams that aren't on board with their interests and ideology.

Actually I'm more worried about how Facebook and Amazon treat non compliance, but Google sure seems to be getting shadier every day.

This combined with the W3C evolving into a corrupt entity just makes me want to get out of tech completely. Maybe if I could get some awesome dev job at the EFF?

[navaati]

From what I can tell, this is all opensource using their publicly documented API. That is, you could implement the same support for GCP in your own auth backend product, and you could implement the same support for your own cloud platform in Vault. So… I don't really get what you're talking about in this context.

[tyingq]

"We're working to enhance the integration between HashiCorp Vault and GCP, including Vault authentication backends for IAM and signed VM metadata."

There's not much detail in that. But, you could certainly read it in a way that using Hashicorp products might be lower friction than using other products on GCP.

[halfteatree]

Tinfoilism does not help anything.

This is a genuine collaboration effort by two of the players whose services many people are already using together, and they are making that experience better for their users.

The kind of dismissiveness and hyperbole in your comment is why we can't have nice things.

[carapace]

It's not "Tinfoilism" in a post-Snowden world, okay?

The reason we can't have nice has much more to do with naivete than paranoia when the paranoics are right.

[halfteatree]

How does Snowden have anything to do with a collaboration between Google and Hashicorp?

You say this is not tinfoilism, but the tinfoil in this one is strong.

[carapace]

> How does Snowden have anything to do with a collaboration between Google and Hashicorp?

I don't think they have anything to do with each other. My point is that we know some weird things are happening and it's a put-down and a conversation stopper to call someone a tinfoil hat wearer.

(The best you can say is that the person you're insulting might have a mental illness.)

This is a pet peeve of mine because I knew about some of the hijinks that have gone down (and are going down) since before Snowden flushed his life down the toilet to get people to pay attention and I've been dismissed with that exact term. It's naive in a post-Snowden world to not postulate conspiracies.

[lmickh]

The Hashicorp stack is pretty widely used in part for its open source cross-platform capabilities. This seems more along the lines of "Hey! You already use Terraform/Vault for provider X. Now GCP works even better with the tools you already use!"

You concern is probably worthwhile, but I think this is not an example of it.

[jacques_chester]

I work for Pivotal and we donate engineering for a product (CredHub) which is comparable to Vault, though with a slightly different set of motivating problems.

We, like HashiCorp, cooperate with Google on a lot of things.

They don't pick winners. What works best for Google is to get your workload into GCP. It matters little whether the bits you run are Pivotal bits, HashiCorp bits, Docker bits, Red Hat bits, IBM bits, Microsoft bits or your own bits.

What matters is that they're being processed on GCP atoms.

The analogy I have used before is that Shell, BP and ExxonMobil don't care whether you burn their fuel in a Ford or a Toyota. They mostly care that you burn their fuel.

I don't mean to paint a cynical picture here. As a partner Google is excellent, responsive and respectful, our engineering cultures have good compatibility and there are deep common interests. But Google's goal is to make GCP the most attractive place to run your workload. That means that they are going to be ecumenical. They want to help us to win, but they want to help everyone to win, because that helps them to win.

[kbenson]

> Obviously you can't just outright buy everyone, but they seem to be increasingly abusive towards technologies and teams that aren't on board with their interests and ideology.

I 'm not sure where you're coming from or going with this. Do you have an example to illustrate? What are you considering collaborators and non-collaborators?

[manigandham]

Any two corporations can work together to create partnerships and better integrations of their products and services. This is how most business is done.

What exactly is your problem?