dietlibc VS pulumi-aws

- 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.

Sure, but the providers for some of the biggest platforms are maintained by HashiCorp[1] - like the AWS, Azure, GCP, and Kubernetes providers[2], and it appears the Pulumi AWS provider (for example) _does_ use the Terraform AWS provider, even to this day[3].

1. https://developer.hashicorp.com/terraform/registry/providers... - "official" providers are maintained by HashiCorp

2. https://registry.terraform.io/browse/providers?tier=official - The filtered list of "official" providers maintained by HashiCorp

3. https://github.com/pulumi/pulumi-aws/tree/008c4360bc9fc24303... - Just prove it to myself, I can see the `upstream` git submodule, which embeds pulumi/terraform-provider-aws, which is a fork of hashicorp/terraform-provider-aws, although the repo was not created as a fork in Github, so it is not marked as a "fork" and so I have to compare commit histories to tell that it is a fork.

>Isn't pulumi aws just terraform under the hood still?

It depends.

The AWS "Classic" provider uses the terraform provider [1].

The AWS "Native" provider does not, and instead uses the AWS Cloud Control API [2].

[1]: https://github.com/pulumi/pulumi-aws

[2]: https://github.com/pulumi/pulumi-aws-native

Pulumi uses terraform providers to schematize the CRUD options for some cloud providers. Part of the difficulty with any infrastructure as code offering is that your favourite cloud provider doesn't always provide a full API spec, so we need to somehow figure out what resources can be created, what parameters are available to those resources etc. We take the terraform provider, look at the available operations for that provider and then turned it into a Pulumi schema, which can then be read by the Pulumi engine. If you take a look here you can actually see that generated schema for AWS.