bcfg2

[seth vidal]

On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 01:13 +0100, Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote:
> On Dec 21, 2006, at 7:37, seth vidal wrote:
> 
> > If we start tying down ruby or any other language as we move along we
> > end up having more and more pieces of the OS that we cannot deploy new
> > versions of w/o fear of breaking our administrative infrastructure.
> 
> I'm sorry, that's just FUD.

You're using FUD like it is its own thing. Fear Uncertainty and Doubt
are things that a sysadmin must weigh when evaluating tools.




> As someone else pointed out: It's really not reasonable to say "oh,  
> we don't trust we won't break our own packages so let's not use  
> them".  Dog food and all.   In particular not if the worst case  
> scenario is to login to each box manually to downgrade a bad RPM to  
> get the administration infrastructure going again.

If you can login.

But let's be clear, I don't really care enough about this argument to
continue it. If y'all want to use puppet, do so or something.

-sv