Puppet, chef, cobbler, ansible, etc...
-
This post is deleted! -
@Kelly said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Today, it appears that Chef and Ansible are the two big dogs left at the top of the heap... for the moment.
I've read some very favourable things regarding Ansible, but I've wondered how the Redhat purchase will change things for them. Ansible Tower is certainly pricey.
For the better, I would assume. No more start up status, now they have a huge open source backer behind them with deep pockets and a lot of reason for them to keep doing good things.
-
This post is deleted! -
@aaron said:
@Kelly said:
Ansible Tower is certainly pricey.
Do you have a need for Tower? Depending on your environment and people using it.
There was an open-source alternative that I came across once, but I think it was half baked.
I don't believe I do, but I'm leery of a company having a paid version of something I depend on that is out of my price range. If they take a feature I consider critical and move it to the paid product exclusively I have to start over with another platform.
-
This post is deleted! -
@Kelly said:
@aaron said:
@Kelly said:
Ansible Tower is certainly pricey.
Do you have a need for Tower? Depending on your environment and people using it.
There was an open-source alternative that I came across once, but I think it was half baked.
I don't believe I do, but I'm leery of a company having a paid version of something I depend on that is out of my price range. If they take a feature I consider critical and move it to the paid product exclusively I have to start over with another platform.
That's the beauty of open source, they can't really do that. The license protects you.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Kelly said:
@aaron said:
@Kelly said:
Ansible Tower is certainly pricey.
Do you have a need for Tower? Depending on your environment and people using it.
There was an open-source alternative that I came across once, but I think it was half baked.
I don't believe I do, but I'm leery of a company having a paid version of something I depend on that is out of my price range. If they take a feature I consider critical and move it to the paid product exclusively I have to start over with another platform.
That's the beauty of open source, they can't really do that. The license protects you.
I'm betraying my ignorance here, but how does the open source license prevent a company from changing their free feature set?
-
@Kelly said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Kelly said:
@aaron said:
@Kelly said:
Ansible Tower is certainly pricey.
Do you have a need for Tower? Depending on your environment and people using it.
There was an open-source alternative that I came across once, but I think it was half baked.
I don't believe I do, but I'm leery of a company having a paid version of something I depend on that is out of my price range. If they take a feature I consider critical and move it to the paid product exclusively I have to start over with another platform.
That's the beauty of open source, they can't really do that. The license protects you.
I'm betraying my ignorance here, but how does the open source license prevent a company from changing their free feature set?
Because the open source code itself can't be gotten rid of. Once something is Open Source, it's always Open Source, at least that's how I understand it.
Sure you might have to find someone who forks the pre-updated code and keeps that feature you're talking about in a free version. And this doesn't put you in a that much better place, because you're still forced to change to that new fork.
-
@Dashrender said:
@Kelly said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Kelly said:
@aaron said:
@Kelly said:
Ansible Tower is certainly pricey.
Do you have a need for Tower? Depending on your environment and people using it.
There was an open-source alternative that I came across once, but I think it was half baked.
I don't believe I do, but I'm leery of a company having a paid version of something I depend on that is out of my price range. If they take a feature I consider critical and move it to the paid product exclusively I have to start over with another platform.
That's the beauty of open source, they can't really do that. The license protects you.
I'm betraying my ignorance here, but how does the open source license prevent a company from changing their free feature set?
Because the open source code itself can't be gotten rid of. Once something is Open Source, it's always Open Source, at least that's how I understand it.
Sure you might have to find someone who forks the pre-updated code and keeps that feature you're talking about in a free version. And this doesn't put you in a that much better place, because you're still forced to change to that new fork.
There's a lot of dirty dishes in the open source world...
-
@Kelly said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Kelly said:
@aaron said:
@Kelly said:
Ansible Tower is certainly pricey.
Do you have a need for Tower? Depending on your environment and people using it.
There was an open-source alternative that I came across once, but I think it was half baked.
I don't believe I do, but I'm leery of a company having a paid version of something I depend on that is out of my price range. If they take a feature I consider critical and move it to the paid product exclusively I have to start over with another platform.
That's the beauty of open source, they can't really do that. The license protects you.
I'm betraying my ignorance here, but how does the open source license prevent a company from changing their free feature set?
Because once the feature is out there and open, there is no means of taking it back, it's already released. Only new code can be kept out of the public's hands.
-
@Dashrender said:
Because the open source code itself can't be gotten rid of. Once something is Open Source, it's always Open Source, at least that's how I understand it.
Exactly, open has total protection for the consumer. Once the code is open, it's open. Period. There is no going back because it belongs to everyone at that point.
-
@Dashrender said:
Sure you might have to find someone who forks the pre-updated code and keeps that feature you're talking about in a free version. And this doesn't put you in a that much better place, because you're still forced to change to that new fork.
That's true, but that presents a massive risk to the company to have a fork out there that is fully open and competing with them. You risk the original product being the one that gets left behind as it is no longer the definitive authority as to being the "master."
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Because the open source code itself can't be gotten rid of. Once something is Open Source, it's always Open Source, at least that's how I understand it.
Exactly, open has total protection for the consumer. Once the code is open, it's open. Period. There is no going back because it belongs to everyone at that point.
like releasing a photo of yourself and trying to take it back. It's already out there
