On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 12:14:28PM -0500, seth vidal wrote: > 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. > > > > > Or cfengine for that matter, though I'm getting dissatisfied with it myself. > > > > I haven't looked at cfengine yet either, but from what I've seen it's > > cryptic configuration is a major con. > > > > What was wrong with glump and friends? > > It's simple, no cryptic formatting of files or craziness. The scripting > language that runs on the hosts is whatever you want it to be. Do you have a URL for glump? -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpSsWtGIpdYd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
