On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Matt Lawrence <m...@technoronin.com> wrote:
> cfengine is an academic project. It tend to want to control your entire
> system and changes are often made by writing exceptions to the current
> configuration. Folks I know have found the syntax to be difficult to use
> and have suggested that writing a code generator to create the
> configuration files would be an improvement in their environments. It
> does have a bit of the "in a perfect world" attitude.
I couldnt disagree more. cf users write promises for what they want
to manage and apply those to classes. Theyre free to negate, create
complex classes, etc.
I will say that inputs sprawl like whoa in cf2, but bundles in cf3
(very much like modules in puppet) help abate that considerably.
Also I dont get why 'zomg its an academic project' is an argument. I
hear that about as often as 'zomg puppet is declarative'.
Oh, and the code generator? Sucks. Esp the cf2 input => cf3 input
conversion dingus. But the docs for cf{2,3} are amazingly good.
> Puppet is extremely pragmatic, it lets you manage whatever pieces you want
> to manage. I know a number of folks who speak very highly of it. It has
> it's own syntax and parser that is quite straightforward. There are some
> operations where you need to shell out and run something that returns a
> result, not bad, but not spectacularly good. A reasonably mature product
> with lots of good support.
I must say ralsh and other goodies are pretty slick.
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lopsa.org
http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
http://lopsa.org/
