Ohad Levy wrote:
Hi All,
I'm sorry if I offended anyone by saying that Foreman solves all of
puppet problems, I mainly meant that there are areas which puppet
simply doesn't deal with, but we as sysadmins need to.
My goal with Foreman is to make our life easier, Foreman would be
extremely difficult to made if Puppet was not around, and I'm grateful
for puppet and RL.
As far it goes to the history, Foreman is inspired on another tool
which I was responsible for and was developed internally for the
company I work for in 2008, I've tried hard to opensource that tool,
but once I've failed I've started rewriting foreman from scratch on my
free time.
I spend a lot of my time on Foreman, mainly because I wanted to
contribute something back, I truly believe in opensource, and for the
first time, was able to release something that people might find useful.
Our initial goals (RL and myself) were to share the code, however
we've learned that there is a mismatch between what RL needs, and
what I can deliver, RL need to make money, while I didn't feel its
right that in order to do opensource development I need to get a lawyer.
saying that, I would love to find a way to share/merge, I do know that
there are areas, where we have different aim - while that could be
probably solved with a plugins architecture, at this point of time,
I'll be happy to integrate foreman, share code, libs or what ever that
we all benefit from our strong community.
I've developed foreman to be useful for me, hoping others will find it
useful too, I've been doing my best to add feature requests from the
community, so it fits to us all, at any point of time I didn't aim to
take away clients from RL.
Not everyone needs to use foreman, but one of its goal is to make
puppet more accessible for others (e.g. someone mentioned something
about SSL hell recently? ;)) and at the end act as best practice
approach to system administrations tasks around puppet.
Michael - I'm sure you didnt mean any harm, it just sounded wrong, I'm
sure that no one at RL wants to make its community members feel bad
about just using puppet (because its so great) and not contribute
code, and for the ones who do contribute code, if it doesn't fit
exactly to RL profitable model, there must be other alternatives.
Ohad
Yeah totally. I screwed up here -- I didn't quite voice the let's
figure out how to collaborate and fix what is broken even remotely
correctly.
Thanks for the response. You have done great things here.
I would correct just that last part of what you said though -- if you
want to contribute code, we welcome it, regardless. By no means do we
want to imply that contributions have to be profitable or anything like
that.
Puppet would not be possible without this community and the wellspring
of ideas that flows from it. We'll never forget this and I think you
can look to the history of everything that has happened here and in the
community to show both that this holds true and where the future can go.
Anyway, it should have been said thus: when something sucks, let us
know, and we welcome fixing it... we don't neccessarily want to always
see that be fixed outside of Puppet and welcome those additions and need
(really need) to talk about them and address them.Things added to
Foreman often highlight those things we need to improve. Further, we
also want to welcome ideas for dashboard too ... and such a plugin
architecture I think is a very very logical extension that will happen
there to enable such integrations.
Thanks!
--Michael
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Puppet
Users group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-us...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
