Re: Completely unscientific poll: cfengine, puppet, other?

2016-03-02 Thread Kurt Jaeger
Hi! > I wonder if anybody is using Rex? We have been using Rex > (https://www.rexify.org) with much satisfaction. It is similar in > concept to Ansible, ie push, not pull. I'm planing to look at it as soon as I find time. -- p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 4

Re: Completely unscientific poll: cfengine, puppet, other?

2016-03-02 Thread Priyadarshan
I wonder if anybody is using Rex? We have been using Rex (https://www.rexify.org) with much satisfaction. It is similar in concept to Ansible, ie push, not pull. Configuration instructions are via so-called Rexfiles. They are written in a small DSL but can also contain arbitrary Perl, and that

Re: Completely unscientific poll: cfengine, puppet, other?

2016-03-02 Thread Dave Cottlehuber
Currently just ansible. In the past I've used: cfengine puppet chef ansible cfengine & puppet have large communities with significant amounts of re-usable code, ansible is still a way behind due to being much newer. I am not really impressed with DSLs, they seem to hide not quite enough of the

Re: Completely unscientific poll: cfengine, puppet, other?

2016-03-01 Thread Roger Marquis
Christoph Moench-Tegeder wrote: Some systems (e.g. cfengine) are using a pull model, where the "managed" machines connect to a central hub periodically, fetch the configuration and "do what needs to be done", while e.g. ansible follows a "push" model, where the "agent" is executed

Re: Completely unscientific poll: cfengine, puppet, other?

2016-03-01 Thread Christoph Moench-Tegeder
## Chris Inacio (nacho...@gmail.com): > Happy if you would just reply with which one, if any, you use. I'm using cfengine for a mixed (several Linux, some FreeBSD) environment. But: without the "cfengine-masterfiles" (available as a port), using cfengine can be somewhat painful (as already

Re: Completely unscientific poll: cfengine, puppet, other?

2016-02-29 Thread Michael Gmelin
> On 28 Feb 2016, at 20:11, Chris Inacio wrote: > > Hello all, > > I was considering adding some more support into some tooling/ports for > FreeBSD and I thought it would probably be good to get configuration > management support some thought. So I can understand under

Re: Completely unscientific poll: cfengine, puppet, other?

2016-02-29 Thread Matthew D. Fuller
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 08:34:46AM +0100 I heard the voice of Marko Cupać, and lo! it spake thus: > On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 14:11:36 -0500 > Chris Inacio wrote: > > Happy if you would just reply with which one, if any, you use. > > For my relatively simple task of occasional push

Re: Completely unscientific poll: cfengine, puppet, other?

2016-02-29 Thread Felix Hanley
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:39:56AM +0100, Fernando Herrero Carrón wrote: > El 28 feb. 2016 8:11 p. m., "Chris Inacio" escribió: > > > > Hello all, > > > > I was considering adding some more support into some tooling/ports for > > FreeBSD and I thought it would probably be good

Re: Completely unscientific poll: cfengine, puppet, other?

2016-02-29 Thread Fernando Herrero Carrón
El 28 feb. 2016 8:11 p. m., "Chris Inacio" escribió: > > Hello all, > > I was considering adding some more support into some tooling/ports for > FreeBSD and I thought it would probably be good to get configuration > management support some thought. So I can understand under

Re: Completely unscientific poll: cfengine, puppet, other?

2016-02-28 Thread Marko Cupać
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 14:11:36 -0500 Chris Inacio wrote: > Hello all, > > I was considering adding some more support into some tooling/ports for > FreeBSD and I thought it would probably be good to get configuration > management support some thought. So I can understand under