Arguing semantics here, but I took 'out of the box' in this case means that it work as intended. Being able to control apache settings via attributes and modules via recipes is working 'out of the box' even though the admin is doing work to configure attributes and set run lists, which means you need a level of understanding. A cookbook that doesn't work because it's a year old and systems have changed isn't working 'out of the box'On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Tensibai Zhaoying < " target="_blank"> > wrote:A quick reaction on this two points from my sysadmin point if view
> And here we are: Examples, Cookbooks, things that work out of the box and are up to date.
Nothing should go on a server 'out of the box', if you're giving a sight on a product, deploying through chef is a bad idea (kind of premature optimization). Specially on free open source code, you should have a look to it and understand what's going on before allowing it to run within your company network.
> Things, people can imitate to build experience and trust — to expand their knowledge and finaly build something their own upon it.
Again, something working out of the box won't be read and understood, imitating something simplified is a bad idea as the author did make choices which could not be the best.
Packages install of popular things like apache or nginx are a good Exemple, you have something running with some guidances on what the best path is, but if you let it 'stock' you won't run a big website on it and you'll be vulnerable to attacks due to the default behavior.
When you're managing systems you need to understand what you allow to run on it as much as possible.
Again, this is my opinion, not a judgement or anything else.
The quality level has refrain me to open-source most of my work because it's way too specific in my point if view, hardening this to avoid the burden of understanding what's going on to future users sounds counter productive to me.
--
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.