On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Tom Limoncelli <t...@whatexit.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (lopser) > > > The real issue here is that we manage machines wrong. The fact that > sysadmins say things like, "if I had more than a few machines I'd set > up Puppet/Chef/CfEngine" should be considered a bug. We should be > using configuration management as the default. Everything should be > done via CM. Software packages should come with plug-ins that expand > the CM verbs/nouns so they can be managed. GUI front-ends should just > manipulate the databases that drive our CM systems. Editing a file in > /etc directly "by hand" should be an obscure art done to teach > internals or to scare children on halloween. Sadly Unix isn't built > like that (today) but that's where we should be aiming. > I've been waiting for at least a decade now for a Linux distribution to pick one of the CMs out there and just start supporting using said CM as the default way to manage their distribution. It seems like the commercial distributions (RHEL, SuSe, ??) all want to build their own GUI based management system from scratch. I'm guessing this is part of their attempt at "value-add" in order to convince people to buy even bigger support contracts. For me it just means, they are no better then the free distributions (Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu) in terms of real world support. I've rarely had to contact vendor support for software, but I've had to install/reinstall systems countless times where a by default CM would have been a big advantage. Bill Bogstad
_______________________________________________ Tech mailing list Tech@lists.lopsa.org https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
