Luke == Luke Kanies [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Luke The problem is that there appears to be a split whether we
Luke want it or not. The last few workshops have been very
Luke frustrating for me, because they haven't really even tried to
Luke address how a sysadmin would take advantage of
Luke == Luke Kanies [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Luke If you integrate it with the configuration generator, then
Luke you've got to have a tight semantic bond between the validator
Luke and the generator (i.e., it's not enough that the box be a
Luke mail server, it must specifically listen
Narayan Desai wrote:
Luke == Luke Kanies [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Luke The problem is that there appears to be a split whether we
Luke want it or not. The last few workshops have been very
Luke frustrating for me, because they haven't really even tried to
Luke address how a sysadmin
Alva Couch wrote:
Luke Kanies wrote:
Yes, you could specifically add this functionality to a given tool,
but could you create it as a generic component that could be added to
any tool? Could you see a single validator that could work with
Puppet, cfengine, and BCFG2?
You assume that it
Again, I agree no one cares about the abstraction layer, but I am
flabbergasted that this is the case. I assume no one cared about
portable languages when C and libC were developed either; I know I don't
have the smarts of Kernighan et al, but I'll keep pushing until I fail
or someone
Brandon == Brandon S Allbery KF8NH [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brandon Luke recently mentioned a presentation by Tom Limoncelli
Brandon about why he doesn't do automated configuration management;
Brandon does anyone have a pointer to this, or a summary or etc.?
Brandon I'm still coming up
