Why do GCP employees always post in HN articles about how much "better" GCP is than AWS or how GCP "did it first"?
Our company literally can't use GCP, full stop, because Google is completely ignoring IPv6 support. I heard load balancers are now in beta, which just terminates IPv6 and connects to the back end with IPv4.
When am I going to be able to make an outbound IPv6 connection from GCP? Specifically the Compute Engine VMs.
The IPv6 termination is now GA, but I agree with your sentiment (we're behind on IPv6). That said, it's a very binary thing: you either have IPv6 throughout the virtual networking stack or you don't. We're not ignoring it, particularly since Google cares so deeply about IPv6 worldwide, but we are behind.
Disclosure: I work on Google Cloud.
Edit: I'm not sure why you're being downvoted, it's a fair criticism.
The only thing that you have to do to satisfy this requirement is don’t hardcode IPv4 addresses in your app. If you are using domain names for everything then it doesn’t matter if those are only resolvable to v4 addresses.
You don't necessarily need individual VMs to be IPv6 addressable to do this. That is, since our global load balancer already supports IPv6 termination, your app's API or website or whatever will be served as IPv6.
I actually enjoy the extra information they give, and the clear excitement about what they work on. I've seen how the sausage is made at AWS and the people I've met that worked on it were extremely detached. This very much shows in the product.
GCP is behind on features, but I find the features work very well and are super nice to work with.
Seems like parent merely stated a pretty uncontroversial fact. And they are part of this community as much as anyone else is -- I at least appreciate the stakeholder participation and honest disclosure.
> Seems like parent merely stated a pretty uncontroversial fact.
Exactly. Here's one scenario:
> "I think this is a really fun movie, and I thought the ending was very smart (disclosure, I did some FX on the sequences with the Shnorp, and I have an affair with the producer's sister)"
here's another:
> "You are both right, actually: the running time for the US release is 94 minutes, whereas the Swedish contains the Shnorp nipple scenes which increase the total length to 96 minutes. (full disclosure, I was a roadie on the set)"
Guess what I find obnoxious and see many discussions filled with?
If it's in a dictionary, thanks for the fact, no I don't care who you work for or how "excited" you are and how "awesome" your team is and whatnot. It's so incredibly needy and tacky and seems the norm now; where the person calling it out actually gets piled on, while BS like this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15342721 is fine. It is what it is.
This is not bragging, it is an important piece of the information that informs you if someone commenting can be biased or self-promoting in a news, that their company is featured in.
We disclose our employer to be clear that while we are super excited about these releases, we're also trying to be as open and clear that our opinions come with a natural bias that others seem to rarely disclose.
There's no coordination or conniving to this, people just like rad stuff.
I don't really have a problem with it. So long as they're on topic and relevant (i.e. not trying to sell GSuite in an AWS thread), it's fine. Certainly better than not hearing from them at all.
I think put the disclosure upfront just make things clearer that we are not dragging. You already know where our butts sit and you can judge our words from pure-technical perspective.
Otherwise, people may say Google hire a bunch of ghost accounts just for promotion purpose.
(I work for Google)