He's prominent, but cornerstone might be a bit much. It's almost as flooded as Python.
I know of him through his Ansible 'roles'. Definitely one of the few people I could name in the space.
Note: roles are reusable sets of config tasks
Regarding the stance, I'm a little bewildered.
Some background on Ansible: the entire point of it is to reduce how much you care about the target OS... and he's supporting very-similar derivatives.
What little effort is required, will largely be there. Very rarely, dare I say never, do you care about point releases. Something silly is afoot if so.
Being selective with your modules deals with a considerable part the abstraction. For example, use 'package' instead of apt/dnf/something specific.
I write/test on Fedora, deploy to Ubuntu, and have been migrating to RHEL -- with no serious effort. Some dictionaries to hold different binary/config file paths.
Anyway, this is all to say - I see this as somewhat performative, but I don't disagree with it either.
I don't believe much will happen in the end. Good, bad, or otherwise.
The roles very likely will work in 'unsupported' land. Yet, the path IBM is taking with Red Hat is clear (while annoying)... and probably not changing
Calling it now, the majority of the incompatibility will be:
- subscription-manager (which can/should be done before roles you get from others)
- FIPS (a niche, where I would fully support the response being a support contract request)
Add a dash of irony (maybe?) because he's still supporting Red Hat indirectly by working with/on Ansible and close-enough environments.
I know of him through his Ansible 'roles'. Definitely one of the few people I could name in the space. Note: roles are reusable sets of config tasks
Regarding the stance, I'm a little bewildered.
Some background on Ansible: the entire point of it is to reduce how much you care about the target OS... and he's supporting very-similar derivatives.
What little effort is required, will largely be there. Very rarely, dare I say never, do you care about point releases. Something silly is afoot if so.
Being selective with your modules deals with a considerable part the abstraction. For example, use 'package' instead of apt/dnf/something specific.
I write/test on Fedora, deploy to Ubuntu, and have been migrating to RHEL -- with no serious effort. Some dictionaries to hold different binary/config file paths.
Anyway, this is all to say - I see this as somewhat performative, but I don't disagree with it either.
I don't believe much will happen in the end. Good, bad, or otherwise.
The roles very likely will work in 'unsupported' land. Yet, the path IBM is taking with Red Hat is clear (while annoying)... and probably not changing
Calling it now, the majority of the incompatibility will be:
Add a dash of irony (maybe?) because he's still supporting Red Hat indirectly by working with/on Ansible and close-enough environments.