Thank you, Peter. This is the type of response I wanted. “Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.” Bill Waterson (Calvin & Hobbes)
----- Peter Meier <[email protected]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 07/12/2011 05:26 PM, Dan White wrote: > > This tells me RedHat picked Foreman over Cobbler. It does not tell > > me WHY. > > > > Their reasons may not apply to my situation. > > > > I am not trying to be difficult, but I find that I cannot accept an > > opinion on a technical issue without technical information to back it > > up. Also, this is for my job, so I need to be able to justify my > > decision with more than "The folks on the puppet mailing list told me > > to do it this way". > > * strong: foreman, thanks to its smart proxies, is not that subnet > oriented as cobbler is. Means: You can use one foreman to deploy > things into multiple subnets/locations from one installation, which > gets much more complicated with cobbler. > > * strong: foreman integrates puppet from the beginning on, means for > example: > > ** strong: foreman integrates the configuration of puppet nodes, while > cobbler has a much simpler general "external parameter" option meant > for any configuration management system > ** strong: foreman integrates puppet reporting, while with cobbler you > would need another tool, like dashboard. > > * strong: foreman has much better support for other distros than redhat > based distros > > * medium: cobbler has better integration to address baremetals, like > powering them on via powerbars. According to my current knowledge > foreman doesn't (yet) have the capability to tell powerbars to turn > baremetals on. > > * medium non-technical: cobbler is integrated in the current > spacewalk/satellite solution, while foreman is part of the next > generation of redhat's "satellite". -> http://katello.org > > * medium: cobbler can also manage external repositories, while foreman > rather delegates that to other tools (rsync scripts,...). > > * uncertain, but rather strong: foreman has better integration with > libvirt, actually within the webinterface cobbler doesn't have one at > all imho. but I could be wrong... > > * weak: foreman is written in the same language as puppet, so if you > anyway would have to learn both ruby and python, it might be easier > to have 2 new tools written in the same language > > ~pete > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAk4dNUsACgkQbwltcAfKi3/fFgCfUvOZ2gP0TzDIiy6gg21IQbCy > 41wAnA/J49OLHpaILc+yBIabjbZ8Kphd > =P2nf > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Puppet Users" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
