I just though I’d share

  • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Ansible is foss, free of cost and requires almost no additional overhead or hardware.

    It isn’t the best sometimes but if you have a bunch of machines to manage it works great. (Assuming they aren’t behind a NAT)

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Ansible is foss, free of cost and requires almost no additional overhead or hardware.

      Um, why are you stressing foss ? I only ask because the 2002 kit was

      • cron
      • make
      • awk
      • at
      • rpm

      ‘It’s foss’ isn’t really a selling point, here, since ansible is still outmatched by everything else available – including that gaggle of tools from 22 years ago.

      … which was foss.

      The only thing Ansible has going for it is momentum; and cult-people who haven’t seen Chef or even that aforementioned tool-bag. Heaven forbid someone sees MgmtConfig converging 1000 machines in under a second immediately after a file is changed on one (ergo no playbook run taking 10 minutes). They’d be crying every day afterward that they were still stuck on worse-than-2002-technology Ansible. At 2002, Ansible pre-dates GOOGLE MAPS for technology; and facebook; and the iPhone. Ansible is the MapQuest Printout of technology.

      The new tech is so reactive, it can revert a file back to conformity immediately after it’s saved; before it can be reopened!

      AND IT’S STILL OPEN SOURCE. Of course. Because that’s a no-brainer.