tom.haddon at canonical.com
Tue Jun 7 14:31:11 UTC 2011
On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 11:05 -0300, Gustavo Niemeyer wrote:
> > Sure, we're all abstracting things out and trusting other people with
> > certain parts of the system. I'm not writing all the code that runs on
> > my system, I'm using packaged code, etc.,
> Right, exactly.
> > but that doesn't mean you still don't have visibility on the changes
> > being made or having control over what changes you're comfortable
> > with.
> Interestingly, it does mean as much. Last time you upgraded the
> kernel, have you inspected the code to see what were the actual
> changes? No, because that's too time consuming, too complex
> to observe and understand it all at once, and because there are
> good people taking care of that. So, you choose to delegate
> control over your production environment to these people.
I absolutely take the point that we're not looking at all the kernel
code every time we upgrade the kernel. However, what I meant was more
that I do have a reasonable expectation that the configuration options I
have configured for kernel settings won't get overwritten with each new
upgrade. So yes, I am trusting in the sense of not knowing about
specific changes, but I am also controlling in the sense of certain
exposed configuration options (hence the term, configuration
> Ensemble is way too young for me to request that level of trust
> from you, of course. What I'm pointing out, though, is that the.
> idea that people want to know _everything_ going on is simply
> not true.
Absolutely. I'm not saying we know everything going on.
> Ensemble adds a layer of abstraction, and like all
> abstraction layers, it hides some details. Even then, if it
> works well, and makes people's lives significantly easier, and
> enables them to do things they couldn't otherwise, it will
Yep, agreed. Adoption will also depend (to some extent) on how
comfortable people are with the level of exposure to the details that
Ensemble gives. If it hides too much, that'd be a problem, just as if it
didn't hide enough, that'd be a problem :)
> > So fwiw, we can (and are) doing much of this in Puppet as well. I won't
> > say it's as easy syntactically as Ensemble promises to be, but we do
> > have services that we can scale up very trivially and other parts of the
> Sure, in essence that's doable even with shell scripts. It's
> analogous to the way we also don't need packages or apt: they're just
> a bunch of files in a tarball, and you can also do it by hand, or code
> your own system if you want, as many have been doing. Rolling your
> own has good parts (e.g. you understand it all) and bad parts (e.g.
> you maintain it all, and don't benefit of work others have done that
> could otherwise be plugged in the system in an effortless way).
I'm not really sure I follow here. Are you saying that you could in
theory do what Puppet is doing with shell scripts? Surely that applies
just as much to any configuration/deployment tool?
More information about the Ensemble