Concourse VS sso-wall-of-shame

Ableton ⬩ Acima ⬩ ACKO ⬩ ActiveState ⬩ Adrima ⬩ AJR International ⬩ Alma ⬩ Astrosat ⬩ Ava ⬩ Avetta ⬩ Azara ⬩ Barmenia ⬩ Basiq ⬩ Beautiful Destinations ⬩ BEC Systems ⬩ Bekk ⬩ Bellroy ⬩ Bendyworks ⬩ Bernoulli Finance ⬩ Blue Fog Training ⬩ BravoTran ⬩ Brilliant ⬩ Budapest School ⬩ Buildr ⬩ Cachix ⬩ CalculoJuridico ⬩ CareRev ⬩ CARFAX ⬩ Caribou ⬩ carwow ⬩ CBANC ⬩ CircuitHub ⬩ CN Group CZ ⬩ CoinTracking ⬩ Concourse CI ⬩ Consensys ⬩ Cornell Tech ⬩ Corvus ⬩ Crowdstrike ⬩ Culture Amp ⬩ Day One ⬩ Deepgram ⬩ diesdas.digital ⬩ Dividat ⬩ Driebit ⬩ Drip ⬩ Emirates ⬩ eSpark ⬩ EXR ⬩ Featurespace ⬩ Field 33 ⬩ Fission ⬩ Flint ⬩ Folq ⬩ Ford ⬩ Forsikring ⬩ Foxhound Systems ⬩ Futurice ⬩ FörsäkringsGirot ⬩ Generative ⬩ Genesys ⬩ Geora ⬩ Gizra ⬩ GWI ⬩ HAMBS ⬩ Hatch ⬩ Hearken ⬩ hello RSE ⬩ HubTran ⬩ IBM ⬩ Idein ⬩ Illuminate ⬩ Improbable ⬩ Innovation through understanding ⬩ Insurello ⬩ iwantmyname ⬩ jambit ⬩ Jobvite ⬩ KOVnet ⬩ Kulkul ⬩ Logistically ⬩ Luko ⬩ Metronome Growth Systems ⬩ Microsoft ⬩ MidwayUSA ⬩ Mimo ⬩ Mind Gym ⬩ MindGym ⬩ Next DLP ⬩ NLX ⬩ Nomalab ⬩ Nomi ⬩ NoRedInk ⬩ Novabench ⬩ NZ Herald ⬩ Permutive ⬩ Phrase ⬩ PINATA ⬩ PinMeTo ⬩ Pivotal Tracker ⬩ PowerReviews ⬩ Practle ⬩ Prima ⬩ Rakuten ⬩ Roompact ⬩ SAVR ⬩ Scoville ⬩ Scrive ⬩ Scrivito ⬩ Serenytics ⬩ Smallbrooks ⬩ Snapview ⬩ SoPost ⬩ Splink ⬩ Spottt ⬩ Stax ⬩ Stowga ⬩ StructionSite ⬩ Studyplus For School ⬩ Symbaloo ⬩ Talend ⬩ Tallink & Silja Line ⬩ Test Double ⬩ thoughtbot ⬩ Travel Perk ⬩ TruQu ⬩ TWave ⬩ Tyler ⬩ Uncover ⬩ Unison ⬩ Veeva ⬩ Vendr ⬩ Verity ⬩ Vnator ⬩ Vy ⬩ W&W Interaction Solutions ⬩ Watermark ⬩ Webbhuset ⬩ Wejoinin ⬩ Zalora ⬩ ZEIT.IO ⬩ Zettle

> Why bother, when Dagger caches everything automatically?

The fear with needing to run `npm ci` (or better, `pnpm install`) before running dagger is on the amount of time required to get this step to run. Sure, in the early days, trying out toy examples, when the only dependencies are from dagger upstream, very little time at all. But what happens when I start pulling more and more dependencies from the Node ecosystem to build the Dagger pipeline? Your documentation includes examples like pulling in `@google-cloud/run` as a dependency: https://docs.dagger.io/620941/github-google-cloud#step-3-cre... and similar for Azure: https://docs.dagger.io/620301/azure-pipelines-container-inst... . The more dependencies brought in - the longer `npm ci` is going to take on GitHub Actions. And it's pretty predictable that, in a complicated pipeline, the list of dependencies is going to get pretty big - at least a dependency per infrastructure provider we use, plus inevitably all the random Node dependencies that work their way into any Node project, like eslint, dotenv, prettier, testing dependencies... I think I have a reasonable fear that `npm ci` just for the Dagger pipeline will hit multiple minutes, and then developers who expect linting and similar short-run jobs to finish within 30 seconds are going to wonder why they're dealing with this overhead.

It's worth noting that one of Concourse's problems was, even with webhooks setup for GitHub to notify Concourse to begin a build, Concourse's design required it to dump the contents of the webhook and query the GitHub API for the same information (whether there were new commits) before starting a pipeline and cloning the repository (see: https://github.com/concourse/concourse/issues/2240 ). And that was for a CI/CD system where, for all YAML's faults, for sure one of its strengths is that it doesn't require running `npm ci`, with all its associated slowness. So please take it on faith that, if even a relatively small source of latency like that was felt in Concourse, for sure the latency from running `npm ci` will be felt, and Dagger's users (DevOps) will be put in an uncomfortable place where they need to defend the choice of Dagger from their users (developers) who go home and build a toy example on AlternateCI which runs what they need much faster.

> I will concede that Dagger’s clustering capabilities are not great yet

Herein my argument. It's not that I'm not convinced that building pipelines in a general-purpose programming language is a better approach compared to YAML, it's that building pipelines is tightly coupled with the infrastructure that runs the pipelines. One aspect of that is scaling up compute to meet the requirements dictated by the pipeline. But another aspect is that `npm ci` should not be run before submitting the pipeline code to Dagger, but after submitting the pipeline code to Dagger. Dagger should be responsible for running `npm ci`, just like Concourse was responsible for doing all the interpolation of the `((var))` syntax (i.e. you didn't need to run some kind of templating before submitting the YAML to Concourse). If Dagger is responsible for running `npm ci` (really, `pnpm install`), then it can maintain its own local pnpm store / pipeline dependency caching, which would be much faster, and overcome any shortcomings in the caching system of GitHub Actions or whatever else is triggering it.

> Imagine you live in a world where no part of the build has to repeat unless the changes actually impacted it. A world in which all builds happened with automatic parallelism. A world in which you could reproduce very reliably any part of the build on your laptop.

That sounds similar to https://concourse-ci.org/

I quite like it, but it never seemed to gain traction outside of Cloud Foundry.

I used Concourse[0] for a while. No real complaints, the visibility is nice but the functionality isn't anything new.

[0] https://concourse-ci.org/

We run https://concourse-ci.org/ on our own hardware at our office. (as a side note, running your own hardware, you realise just how abysmally slow most cloud servers are.)

Concourse: https://concourse-ci.org

We use https://concourse-ci.org/ at the moment and have been reasonably happy with it, however it only has support for linux containers at the moment, no windows containers. (MacOS doesn't have a containers primitive yet unfortunately)

Hi! Tailscalar here. This is very topical for me! Over the past 3 weeks I've been working with internal stakeholders to remove our SSO tax - the sso tax is a pet hate of mine. A couple of weeks ago we removed it from our pricing plan after my proposal was approved, and today I released a blog on our website to announce it more widely: https://tailscale.com/blog/sso-tax-cut

I knew of https://sso.tax (which we are not listed on but I did include in my blog), but didn't know there was another website too!

I'm not the person you've asked, but I'm somebody who has been purchasing SaaS/software for businesses large and small for years. My take:

1. If SSO and other basic modern security features are locked into "Enterprise" pricing tiers then the service is at the bottom of the list (see: https://sso.tax). I'd love to say instant disqualification but too many SaaS companies have it in their head that only wealthy enterprises use SSO, despite SSO platforms being widely available and some quite cheap to acquire and start using.

2. If I need to request a quote to start any kind of service to see what the product is about then I'm not likely to pursue it. Don't make me jump through hoops when I'm just trying to see if a product can fit my needs.

3. If license terms are too complex or easy to violate that's a hard pass. Infrastructure monitoring tools are a great example. The licensing is often per "device" or per monitored metric, and some vendors are very loose with their definition of "device". (Don't use LogicMonitor with k8s unless you like throwing money in the garbage can). Hard lessons learned.

4. If the only details I can find regarding how you secure your product are claims of SOC2 and ISO27001 certification then that's a very likely pass. Those controls are great to have, necessary even, but anyone who has had to work to meet those compliance objectives knows that they're much more about organization controls than they are product security. Give me an idea about how you protect data and whatnot on a security page somewhere, not an attestation that dev and prod are separate and you have logs.

On the side of the positives, outside of not hitting the negative marks, I value ease to work with, responsive and competent support, strong pre and post-sales solutions architecture and support/training (if the product is complex enough to warrant that), and supports SSO. I bring up SSO again because it's a hard requirement for SaaS purchases everywhere I go -- no SSO, no go. Social login is not a substitute and is highly undesired.

Hope this helps.

Don’t be shy, here’s the link: https://github.com/robchahin/sso-wall-of-shame/issues.

It sounds like you're unaware of why SSO is considered a security feature at all them, but it's covered right on the site: https://sso.tax/

It's to allow centralized access management. Stuff like firing someone and revoking their access from one platform instantly, instead running around and changing permissions in every tool manually. Or ensuring people in department A can't be invited to some platform for people in department B in order to limit information access.

SSO tax is predicated on the idea that the moment you outgrow the informal arrangements and liberal access, you're really a business. Seems pretty fair?

Last time I had to implement Okta integration for DocuSign at my employer it was absurdly expensive. If Google does this right then I’d be ever so happy.

DocuSign on the SSO Tax site: https://sso.tax/

There’s a strong, widespread objection to hiding security features behind a paywall: https://sso.tax/

If 2fa is the only way you can differentiate in order to force enterprises to pay, it’s better to have a fee for security than to die because you can’t make money… but broadly, as a security company, you should aim for maximum security for every user.

I totally understand. I'm aware of the SSO tax. It's just honestly a complex feature, with a significant maintenance and support burden, and I leaned making it EE so that it'd be worth all the effort to implement and maintain (i.e. I want it to be a new-positive feature for revenue). But if I could get help from other contributors, I'd be fine with SSO being a CE feature too.

Need to put them up for the SSO Wall of shame. https://sso.tax/