[chef] Re: Re: Formal comparison between chef and other tools

["John E. Vincent (lusis)" < >]

It's probably worth noting that the version of Chef documented was
0.8.x, no? Even the puppet version is fairly old.

One of the issues with studies like this is that it really doesn't
keep pace with the flow of open source development.  Studies that have
this long of a cycle are pretty much pointless by the time they get
released when they include a rapidly changing opensource project.

Point being, using this paper is probably pretty silly just because
it's not even relevant with the current state of things.

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:42 AM, Adam Jacob 
<
 >
 wrote:
> Honestly, I think that paper is flat-out wrong about most of Chef.
>
> From 3.1.1, " Chef on the other hand uses an imperative ruby DSL" - I
> would argue that the DSL is a declarative one, with imperative
> language features.
>
> Section 3.1.3 states that you can "Define groups static groups or
> groups based on queries", which, while true, doesn't cover the fact
> that you can also use similar class based heirarchies to cfengine and
> puppet (through include_recipe, etc.)
>
> Section 3.1.4, under modeling of relations, gets it wrong using his
> own framework. Chef can support all the different levels of
> granularity he discusses, and the arity, but does not really do
> generative constraints.
>
> Section 3.2.1, there are several Chef installs larger than 10k nodes.
>
> Section 3.2.2 references export/collect resources as a workflow, but
> using search and dynamic resource generation counts as "no workflow at
> all".
>
> I can go on, but it made me grumpy.
>
> Adam
>
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Daniel Cukier 
> <
 >
>  wrote:
>> I'm writing paper about the software I'm developing, which uses chef as its
>> CM tool.
>> I'm having some difficulties to demonstrate / prove in the paper why did I
>> choose chef and why it is better then other CM tools.
>> The only paper I found comparing CM tools was this:
>> http://www.usenix.org/events/lisa10/tech/full_papers/Delaet.pdf
>> And if you go through it, you will find that other tools are better
>> evaluated than chef.
>> I love chef and I wish I could demonstrate that it at least as good as the
>> best tools available.
>> Does anybody has any reference that could help me?
>> Or what are the arguments in the paper above that does not cover the best
>> parts of chef?
>> Thanks for any help
>> Daniel Cukier
>
>
>
> --
> Opscode, Inc.
> Adam Jacob, Chief Product Officer
> T: (206) 619-7151 E: 
> 
 
>