On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 10:15 -0600, Jeffrey C. Ollie wrote: > On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 08:58 -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote: > > Jeffrey C. Ollie wrote: > > > On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 14:14 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > > >> On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 10:23:31PM -0600, Jeffrey C. Ollie wrote: > > >>> Another option to look into for configuration management: > > > > Has anyone looked at puppet? > > http://reductivelabs.com/projects/puppet/ > > I haven't looked at Puppet in depth, but one con is that it's written in > Ruby (not that there's anything wrong with that). But there may be > license issues with bcfg2 so that may be an option as well. > skvidal was able to articulate a good reason to not use ruby for the config stack: Anytime we add an interpreted language to the dependencies we need to get a system up and running we're adding another language stack we need to confirm works with our setup before performing an upgrade. That aside, I think the stateless people have been using puppet and generally like it. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
