headers
Matt S Trout | 2 Feb 2005 03:00
Picon

Re: Debian apt tar

On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 02:47:02AM -0800, Steve Traugott wrote:
> That's it.  No more futzing around with CVS, makefiles, or even having
> to maintain a gold server -- with isconf4 there is none.  

http://www.infrastructures.org/bootstrap/isconf.shtml only seems to have
version 2. Are the later versions going to be available for download at
some stage?

--

-- 
    Matt S Trout            Brag sheet:    http://trout.me.uk/services.html
LAMP, Infrastructure        Contact:       services <at> trout.me.uk
   and Automation
     specialist                                       Do it once. Do it right.
Permalink | Reply | 18 comments |
headers
Steve Traugott | 2 Feb 2005 11:17

Re: Debian apt tar

Hi Matt, All,

On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 02:00:23AM +0000, Matt S Trout wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 02:47:02AM -0800, Steve Traugott wrote:
> > That's it.  No more futzing around with CVS, makefiles, or even having
> > to maintain a gold server -- with isconf4 there is none.  
> 
> http://www.infrastructures.org/bootstrap/isconf.shtml only seems to have
> version 2. Are the later versions going to be available for download at
> some stage?

See http://www.isconf.org/version4/index.shtml.  A lot depends on
interest.  The response I got from many of you folks on this list 15
months ago was great, and fueled the prototype that I'm still using now.

But I got pretty worn out at LISA 2003, defending the reasons why it
works -- every time I turned around there was someone else, lance
lowered, in full charge.  It was fun and all, despite the endless jokes
at my expense, but towards the end of the week it got ugly.  In one
session I was publicly faulted by the speaker for saying things I never
said, and after the conference my wife got an e-mail message calling me
a "crackpot", suggesting I quit consulting, and faulting the size of the
version 4 code -- the sender didn't think it was big enough.  Even the
'ISconf' name itself came under fire -- for a while there it looked like
I might have to fight for the moral right to keep using the name I made
up for my own project a decade ago.

Those of you in my infrastructures workshop that year might remember me
being a little on edge...  That wasn't just the tight schedule.  ;-}
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 17 comments |
headers
dmagda+infra | 2 Feb 2005 21:30
Picon
Favicon

Re: Debian apt tar

On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 02:17:53AM -0800, Steve Traugott wrote:

> But I got pretty worn out at LISA 2003, defending the reasons why
> it works -- every time I turned around there was someone else,
> lance lowered, in full charge.  It was fun and all, despite the
> endless jokes at my expense, but towards the end of the week it got
> ugly.  In one session I was publicly faulted by the speaker for

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then you fight you,
then you win.
    -- Mahatma Gandhi

Don't be discouraged, you're in good company. :>

--

-- 
David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/
Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well 
under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mark Ferlatte | 3 Feb 2005 00:34
Gravatar

Re: Debian apt tar

Steve Traugott said on Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 02:17:53AM -0800:
> Hi Matt, All,
> 
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 02:00:23AM +0000, Matt S Trout wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 02:47:02AM -0800, Steve Traugott wrote:
> > > That's it.  No more futzing around with CVS, makefiles, or even having
> > > to maintain a gold server -- with isconf4 there is none.  
> > 
> > http://www.infrastructures.org/bootstrap/isconf.shtml only seems to have
> > version 2. Are the later versions going to be available for download at
> > some stage?
> 
> See http://www.isconf.org/version4/index.shtml.  A lot depends on
> interest.  The response I got from many of you folks on this list 15
> months ago was great, and fueled the prototype that I'm still using now.

Well, it certainly sounds very interesting; I'm encountering problems with
scaling the gold server + CVS repository model, and with teaching new ops folks
how it all works; people seem to take a few months to get used to the fact that
their local changes will go away unless they put them into the CVS server
first.

I hope you get around to releasing it.

M
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Matt S Trout | 3 Feb 2005 01:32
Picon

Re: Debian apt tar

On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 02:17:53AM -0800, Steve Traugott wrote:
> Hi Matt, All,
> 
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 02:00:23AM +0000, Matt S Trout wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 02:47:02AM -0800, Steve Traugott wrote:
> > > That's it.  No more futzing around with CVS, makefiles, or even having
> > > to maintain a gold server -- with isconf4 there is none.  
> > 
> > http://www.infrastructures.org/bootstrap/isconf.shtml only seems to have
> > version 2. Are the later versions going to be available for download at
> > some stage?
> 
> See http://www.isconf.org/version4/index.shtml.  A lot depends on
> interest.  The response I got from many of you folks on this list 15
> months ago was great, and fueled the prototype that I'm still using now.
>
> <snip: stupid arguments against the isconf4 model>

I remember that, and I remember looking forward to the result hugely. Those
who detract from the model have (in every example I've seen) failed to
understand the model. They say "isconf4 isn't good for X" when X is entirely
orthogonal to the aims of isconf4. This is their problem, not yours.

Very simply - if isconf4 can't be released relatively soon, is there any
chance the design documents can be? If I can't have the real thing I'm going
to have to reimplement >50% of it in order to provide the quality of
results to my clients that I promise.

Also, I'm a bit of a perl hacker (see CPAN directory for mstrout) and if you
don't have time to clean it up for release, I'd be happy to - I seriously
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 11 comments |
headers
Ryan Nowakowski | 3 Feb 2005 17:39
Gravatar

Re: Debian apt tar

On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 02:17:53AM -0800, Steve Traugott wrote:
> But I got pretty worn out at LISA 2003, defending the reasons why it
> works -- every time I turned around there was someone else, lance
> lowered, in full charge.  It was fun and all, despite the endless jokes
> at my expense, but towards the end of the week it got ugly.  In one
> session I was publicly faulted by the speaker for saying things I never
> said, and after the conference my wife got an e-mail message calling me
> a "crackpot", suggesting I quit consulting, and faulting the size of the
> version 4 code -- the sender didn't think it was big enough.  Even the
> 'ISconf' name itself came under fire -- for a while there it looked like
> I might have to fight for the moral right to keep using the name I made
> up for my own project a decade ago.

[mount soap box]

Some people need to get a life.  It's just a tool!  Albeit, a very
useful and time-saving tool for sysadmins with the correct high-level
perspective.  Steve, you don't have to defend your work to anyone.
There tons of folks out there using your methodology and tools who are
just grateful for the jumpstart you provided (myself included).
Architects that want to take advantage of your stuff will, those that
don't, won't.  LISA is fun, but I found that many folks show up just to
give their own ego a boost by going through the, "My infrastructure
rocks and yours sucks because..." routine.  While all this junk is going
on, many of the best architects are quietly at work, doing their jobs,
thankful for those who spare the time to share their ideas with the
community.

[umount soap box]
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Heilke, Rainer | 3 Feb 2005 18:28

RE: Debian apt tar

Amen! Steve, keep on trucking.

While people may disagree on aspects/concepts of various tools (in this
case, ISconf), it is through clear discussion that we learn, and even
though I may never get to implement the tool (often, the reasons are
political more than technical), I have learned a great deal through
discussing them. ISconf and this group is no exception--I've been made
to think, and to understand different viewpoints, etc. I have little
time for these "if you don't agree with me, you're just an idiot"
people, and we see too many of them in our industry. Steve, if people
don't like ISconf, and slam you for it, ignore them. They aren't worth
the oxygen. A lot of people do like it, and are grateful. That's
something that you can be proud of.

Rainer

> Ryan Nowakowski

> [mount soap box]
> 
> Some people need to get a life.  It's just a tool!  Albeit, a very
<snip>
> community.
> 
> [umount soap box]
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Steve Traugott | 4 Feb 2005 08:20

Re: Debian apt tar

On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:34:43PM -0800, Mark Ferlatte wrote:
> Well, it certainly sounds very interesting; I'm encountering problems
> with scaling the gold server + CVS repository model, 

What sort of problems?  (I'm wondering if any are in common with what
others run into.)

> and with teaching new ops folks how it all works; people seem to take
> a few months to get used to the fact that their local changes will go
> away unless they put them into the CVS server first.

The whole training thing is what drove v4 as much as anything else --
since I'm usually on a client site only a few days or weeks at most,
it's got to be simple to use.  

Steve
--

-- 
Stephen G. Traugott  (KG6HDQ)
UNIX/Linux Infrastructure Architect, TerraLuna LLC
stevegt <at> TerraLuna.Org 
http://www.stevegt.com -- http://Infrastructures.Org
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Steve Traugott | 4 Feb 2005 10:22

Re: Debian apt tar

On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 12:32:40AM +0000, Matt S Trout wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 02:17:53AM -0800, Steve Traugott wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 02:00:23AM +0000, Matt S Trout wrote:
> > > http://www.infrastructures.org/bootstrap/isconf.shtml only seems to have
> > > version 2. Are the later versions going to be available for download at
> > > some stage?
> > 
> > See http://www.isconf.org/version4/index.shtml.  A lot depends on
> > interest.  The response I got from many of you folks on this list 15
> > months ago was great, and fueled the prototype that I'm still using now.
> >
> > <snip: stupid arguments against the isconf4 model>
> 
> I remember that, and I remember looking forward to the result hugely. Those
> who detract from the model have (in every example I've seen) failed to
> understand the model. They say "isconf4 isn't good for X" when X is entirely
> orthogonal to the aims of isconf4. This is their problem, not yours.

That's pretty accurate, I think.  I'm the kind of silly person who tends
to look inward first though -- "gee, maybe I really don't know what I'm
talking about"...  It took me this long before I could go back and
actually read some of the arguments objectively enough to see what they
were going on about.  At this point I think we didn't make some critical
things clear enough in the 'turing' paper, because in each case the
objections have hinged on the objector missing some fundamental point in
there.  

> Very simply - if isconf4 can't be released relatively soon, is there any
> chance the design documents can be? If I can't have the real thing I'm going
> to have to reimplement >50% of it in order to provide the quality of
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 10 comments |
headers
Benard, Bruce | 3 Feb 2005 18:33
Picon
Favicon

RE: Debian apt tar

Amen.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Nowakowski [mailto:tubaman <at> fattuba.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 8:40 AM
To: infrastructures <at> roton.terraluna.org; Matt S Trout;
infrastructures <at> terraluna.org
Subject: Re: [Infrastructures] Debian apt tar

On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 02:17:53AM -0800, Steve Traugott wrote:
> But I got pretty worn out at LISA 2003, defending the reasons why it 
> works -- every time I turned around there was someone else, lance 
> lowered, in full charge.  It was fun and all, despite the endless 
> jokes at my expense, but towards the end of the week it got ugly.  In 
> one session I was publicly faulted by the speaker for saying things I 
> never said, and after the conference my wife got an e-mail message 
> calling me a "crackpot", suggesting I quit consulting, and faulting 
> the size of the version 4 code -- the sender didn't think it was big 
> enough.  Even the 'ISconf' name itself came under fire -- for a while 
> there it looked like I might have to fight for the moral right to keep

> using the name I made up for my own project a decade ago.

[mount soap box]

Some people need to get a life.  It's just a tool!  Albeit, a very
useful and time-saving tool for sysadmins with the correct high-level
perspective.  Steve, you don't have to defend your work to anyone. There
tons of folks out there using your methodology and tools who are just
grateful for the jumpstart you provided (myself included). Architects
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane