pack VS TSC

I've recently found this quote by Kelsey Hightower:

"I'm convinced the majority of people managing infrastructure just want a PaaS. The only requirement: it has to be built by them."

Source: https://twitter.com/kelseyhightower/status/85193508753294540...

In the last few weeks, I've experimented a bit with Flux (https://fluxcd.io/), Tekton (https://tekton.dev/) and Cloud Native Buildpacks (https://buildpacks.io/) on how to provide K8s powered git push deployments without using a dedicated CI/CD server.

My project is still in early alpha stage and just a proof of concept :-) My vision is to expand it into an Open Source PaaS in the future.

Do you think the above quote is true? What does an open source PaaS need to be like in order to be accepted by software developers?

Some other projects have been discontinued in the past (like Flynn or Deis) or were created before the Kubernetes era.

Is it the right direction to provide a Heroku like solution based on K8s or is it better to provide an Open Source Infrastructure as Code library with building blocks to avoid everything from scratch?

```bash (curl -sSL "https://github.com/buildpacks/pack/releases/download/v0.28.0/pack-v0.28.0-linux-arm64.tgz" | sudo tar -C /usr/local/bin/ --no-same-owner -xzv pack)

Although Dockerfiles have the benefit of migrating existing workloads to containers without having to update your toolchain, I definitely prefer the container-first workflow. Cloud Native [Buildpacks](https://buildpacks.io/) are a CNCF incubating project but were proven at Heroku. Buildpacks support common languages, but working on a Go project I've also had a great experience with [ko](https://ko.build/). Free yourself from Dockerfile!

Cloud Native Buildpacks

It's big and overwhelming and sometimes scary. But you know what? It's also fun, engaging, and very refreshing. Because I'm a DevRel, I don't have many chances to focus on something particular. Still, I'm having a lot of fun exploring different CMSs (like Statamic, Craft, or Sanity), new approaches (at last, I understood why the headless approach is so important), and diving into tech I never used before (hello Buildpacks).

The dates were known in advance - however, the Node team expected OpenSSL 3 to be out before the release of Node 16, but it didn't happen - so they had to release with OpenSSL 1.1.1. Between the lines, I think that there was some minor hope of maybe upgrading, but obviously it was to difficult.

https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/1222

>After the Node incident, it's highly likely Ashley Williams is involved again due to her propensity for racism and sexism.

I didn't know what this was referring to so I looked it up.

Here's a Reddit thread which seems to be the genesis of the complaint (an archive link because the actual post was removed):

https://archive.md/VEtHu

Link to original Reddit thread:

https://old.reddit.com/r/node/comments/6whs2e/multiple_coc_v...

NodeJS GitHub issue thread

https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/324

HN threads:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16085545

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15115989

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16073017

If Node.js 12.x and 14.x releases have full support for ES modules, what gives? I was wondering the same, so I asked Matteo Collina on Twitter (he's a member of the Node.js TSC). Myles Borins (also a member of the TSC) chimed in on the thread to explain the rationale behind ES modules being marked as 'Experimental' in the 12.x and 14.x release lines: