[yourapostasy]

Extremely good point, thank you for making it!

Where I'm at, we just so happen to only be in the initial phases of a cloud strategy, and it happens to align with Pulumi's current support of AWS. So Pulumi's execution of a multi-vendor solution will bear keeping a close eye upon.

We're likely in for a few years yet of fragmented API wars amongst the cloud vendors, before the value extraction from uncoordinated API's levels off enough that a more universal API is adopted for a progressively-larger "core cloud" of defined services (we're kind of seeing that with cloud object storage for example), W3C-style.

[pm90]

Not sure what you mean. I don’t think there will be any api wars; likely providers will support tooling that can talk to their apis. This is currently the case for Terraform where different cloud officially support the tf modules. If they start supporting Pulumi, that would be when I would be comfortable switching to the tool.

[pathseeker]

It's a sad day when the tool you are using to call an API over HTTPS has to be supported by AWS for people to use it.

[pm90]

There's absolutely nothing sad about setting expectations over quality of service for infrastructure management tools. HTTP as a protocol wasn't designed to be e.g. the language for expressively communicating complex state changes when managing cloud infrastructure.

A better analogy, would be if e.g. the NFS protocol spec wasn't enough to use NFS file systems, but required vendor support to work correctly.