Re: [Cfengine-develop] Development plan / meeting

[Luke A. Kanies]

On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Hugo Gayosso wrote:

> I think this is a very important issue, but on the other hand in
> cfengine's web page it says:
>
> "Cfengine is designed to be a part of a computer immune system,"
>
> which implies that it is a building block, not a framework, so maybe
> the goal of cfengine should be something like this:
>
> "cfengine is designed to be the framework for a compute immune
> system".
>
> Which would imply that if we want to build a compute immune system we
> will have cfengine as the framework and other tools will provide help,
> let's say use 'tripwire' for file system security/integrity, 'snort'
> for intrusion detection, etc.
>
> But we need to define what exactly we want cfengine to be, then start
> working from there.

I concur with this goal.  I have gotten the impression from many places
that cfengine was designed to be the main framework responsible for
maintaining a network, but if that is not the actual design goal then that
certainly changes my perspective of what we should attempt to accomplish
with cfengine.

Mark, can you speak on what your design goals are?  Should our first
conclusion be what role we specifically see cfengine playing?

For my part, I need such a framework, and I'd be just as happy with
cfengine filling that role as anything else.  Even more, though, cfengine
is by far the closest to fulfilling that role, and I'd like to push it
that extra bit.

> > > Many "complaints" are just not thinking straight.
> >
> > I agree, but many complaints are also because cfengine makes certain types
> > of operations far more difficult than they need to be.
>
> Either more difficult or different, which I described in a previous
> message as the "cfengine way".

Maybe, but if the complaints I'm thinking of don't fit into the cfengine
way, then I'm not going to be much help in development. :)

Let's see what the overall design goals are, and then what we think is a
reasonable progression to the next step towards reaching that goal.

> > I think it would be very worthwhile for some of us to spend time
> > combing the list archives and figure out what people consistently
> > have to workaround, and then find ways to design those problems out.
>
> I have had this same idea so I could provide some help there, but I
> think we need to define exactly what is 'cfengine' or what we want it
> to be as I asked a few paragraph before.

Do we just wait for Mark to speak up at this point?  Can we take an
unoffical poll?  Everyone, what role do you see cfengine as fulfilling in
your network?  Framework, tool, or somewhere in between?  Where is it now?

For me, I would like it to be a framework, but it's more of a tool right
now.

Luke

-- 
"I used to get high on life but lately I've built up a resistance."