4 ms·
Whenever I see a new piece of technology, my first question is always why is this better than <insert standard tech>? Now, I'm not super familiar with other co
by sna1l 6y ago
Whenever I see a new piece of technology, my first question is always why is this better than <insert standard tech>?
Now, I'm not super familiar with other configuration management systems, but I really have to dig through the docs/blog posts to figure out what the core differences are. Would be nice if the differences were more clearly delineated.
- raziel2p 6y agoThis is going to be a really shallow answer but all the existing solutions are horribly engineered. Even relative newcomers like SaltStack and Ansible are a horrible mess of inconsistent behavior and spaghetti code. There's nothing special indicating that mgmt will be any different, and it seems to me like the project isn't very active, and I would say the era of complex configuration management is over (moving more towards immutable infra, containers and k8s) so it's not worth the effort. If I were to try and give an answer to your question though: mgmt has a dedicated DSL (like Puppet, but unlike Salt and Ansible which is a mess of YAML + Jinja) but without the legacy code and the ability to parallelize execution of states.
- Jedd 6y agoI've worked with Puppet and Ansible, and now I'm a user of Saltstack, and don't often hit my toe on the problems you're asserting. One person's legacy code (in the pejorative) may be another's tried, tested, robust core. Similarly, the 'mess of YAML + Jinja' - might be seen by others as leveraging the power of both. (And in Salt, recipes can be almost anything, eg vanilla python, so long as they spit out something that parses as config.) My gut feel is DSLs really have to offer something hugely compelling in order for me to want to abandon conventional and common config markup formats.
- nikolay 6y agoIt's not new though.