dietlibc VS infracost

- Dietlibc: https://www.fefe.de/dietlibc/

The commercial success of a product totally depends on the business model you come up with, whatever be its opensource (or not) license.

Corporates have a vested interest in promoting the propaganda that only a non-xGPL opensource license can be commercialised successfully simply because they cannot freely steal the source code of a competing xGPL licensed software.

The real value of an FSF license, like the AGPL, is that it was designed to protect the copyright holders, and its users, "right to repair". And thus, it cannot be closed source by anyone (apart from the original copyright holders) once released under the said license (even if future versions are closed source, the old version under xPL remain opensource perpetually). Other open source license (that are less stringent) are prioritised to increase developer contribution. Source code under such license can be closed-source even from the original copyright holder.

But again, commercial success totally depends on the business model you come up with, irrespective of your license. The right license and the right business model will empower each other. Or cripple your business.

Stefan Tomanek - Creator of dietlibc, a libc optimized for small size - https://github.com/stefan-tomanek (The dietlibc project itself doesn't have an official GitHub repository, but you can find it at https://www.fefe.de/dietlibc/)

There are definitely some nice alternatives to glibc out there. He mentions Cosmopolitan Libc. I've used musl, uclibc, and dietlibc/libowfat in the past.

Maybe you should include the math part of a libc statically with your code. glibc is one option, or dietlibc if you want it to be as small as possible.

I agree that the implementation of printf is complex, but the interface is not. Hence calling it should not introduce bloat. Glibc adds a bunch of constructors and tables and such, whereas linking with dietlibc will probably lead to a smaller executable.

‍Infracost is a cost estimation tool that generates cost estimates for Terraform projects, which is crucial for budget planning and cost optimization, especially in cloud environments where resource costs can vary significantly.

Infracost is a tool that provides cloud cost estimates for infrastructure managed by Terraform. It enables engineers to view and understand the financial impact of their infrastructure changes before they are applied. Infracost integrates directly into the workflow, offering cost breakdowns in various environments like the terminal, Visual Studio Code, or directly within pull requests. This feature allows for more informed decision-making regarding infrastructure modifications, promoting cost-awareness and budget management in the early stages of development. Infracost is particularly useful for teams looking to balance cloud resource utilization with budget constraints. Infracost Cloud is their SaaS product that builds on top of Infracost open source and works with CI/CD integrations. It gives team leads, managers and FinOps practitioners dashboards, guardrails, centralized cost policies and Jira integration so they can help guide the team (e.g. switch AWS GP2 volumes to GP3).

Inevitable end for every open source company since the free money ended. What bothers me is that wording is vague enough.

> HashiCorp considers a competitive offering to be a product or service provided to users or customers outside of your organization that has significant overlap with the capabilities of HashiCorp’s commercial products or services.

So, consider there is no cost estimate service and you built a thing that got popular (https://github.com/infracost/infracost). Then after 2 years Terraform Cloud catches up. What happens? Are you out of business?

I've started to work on Carbonifer, a tool that can estimate carbon emissions before deploying an infrastructure. A bit like infracost, this reads Terraform files and estimates carbon emissions if this plan is applied.

Infracost is an open-source project that helps us understand how and where we’re spending our money. It gives a detailed breakdown of actual infrastructure costs and calculates how changes impact them. Basically, Infracost is a git diff for billing.

Infracost: Estimativas de custos nos Pull Requests.

There is some discussion on the infracost issue tracker where it looks like this specific error is more common with tgenv

Cost:Infracost (estimation): https://github.com/infracost/infracostTerratag (tagging): https://github.com/env0/terratag (disclaimer, I am CEO at env0)

I use https://infracost.io 🤗