Yeah, if you need to manage individual servers/VMs, it's not a great fit. I've used cloud-init files to configure EC2 instances on startup with things like packages and SSH keys, and that works pretty well if you can treat those servers as if they're immutable. But if you need to get in there and run something, it's not quite a replacement for Ansible.
I'm shocked that no one has said Terraform yet. It has its own declarative DSL, which some people complain about (because people complain about everything), but it works well for what it's intended to do.
Providers can be created for anything with an API, from the major cloud providers to k8s to anything else.
No agent is required: it just writes state to a file, and then it diffs that file against the actual state every time it runs. (In practice, you'll probably want to put that state in a remote location like an S3 bucket, but that's very easy to do. And if you're the only one using it, you can just save it locally, which is the default behavior.)
Depending on your use case for Ansible, it could be a very good fit.
> Eventually you outgrow the cloud provider and go into a data center. By that point you’re talking number of racks vs VMs.
How many companies actually hit this stage? I can only think of a few, and usually it's because they have very specific hardware requirements (e.g. Dropbox's whole business is file storage, or if you're doing something that requires tons of GPUs).
This is true if the slides are for a presentation, but unfortunately, many people in business (coughconsultantscough) use the deck as their deliverable and cram all the information in there. A memo or report would be better in most cases, but the culture is what it is, and at the end of the day, if the CEO expects a deck, the CEO is going to get a deck.
Solo maintainer vs. organization is definitely an imperfect heuristic for long-term support. But it's a decent approximation for dependencies that are low ROI but potentially high impact if they break, like a UI widget that gets used everywhere in your app.
It's the problem with any third-party dependency (ask anyone who's used certain Google products). But then if you build everything in-house, a) it's expensive, and b) you end up with homegrown frameworks written by somebody who left the company five years ago and now everyone is afraid to touch it.
The laws of software thermodynamics come for all of us. Eventually, old systems decay, and you need to roll up your sleeves and do the work to keep them going.
The big problem with one-person packages isn't so much security as it is support. I have been burned more than once by old applications where key features rely on random packages with one maintainer who disappeared years ago. At least with a group, you have options to keep things moving without having to fork the library yourself.
(Of course the root cause here is arguably too much reliance on third-party dependencies, but searchable dropdowns are _such_ a pain to make on your own, and it's so tempting...)
The Sangria GraphQL library in Scala ran into a version of this. The libraries were primarily maintained by one person, who wrote the vast majority of the code and was the only person with write privileges in the main repos. Sadly, he passed away unexpectedly, and it took months (maybe a year or so) before his colleagues and other contributors were able to get access to the GitHub org.
There is a big difference between finding work for yourself and finding enough work to keep a whole team employed, as you would be doing if you ran an agency.
> Its type system was so lame that it gave rise to most of the "Gang of Four" patterns, most of which are just workarounds for Java- not some first order principles of programming.
Java wasn't released until after the first edition of Gang of Four. C++ is probably what you should be pointing the finger at.
Another commenter on this post said that this service isn't available in India, so it seems like the real flaw is that this shouldn't have been presented to a user in India by whatever site you were using.
I don’t think it’s necessarily bad science. The null hypothesis is that cats would react the same as dogs, and the study suggests that’s not true. While this is not surprising to most people, it is still a more rigorous attempt to understand the differences between cats and dogs than simple intuition and anecdotal experience. I do think the experimenters should probably have done a follow-up study more attuned to cats’ natural abilities, but they likely feel the same way.
Human beings didn’t evolve to spend 100% of their time staring into a webcam, only interacting over Zoom. Remote is great and should be part of the solution, but sometimes, you just can’t beat face-to-face.