Live data from Hacker News

CINC Is Not Chef

cinc.sh

51–57 of 57 posts

Re: CINC Is Not Chef

#51
post #25

I legitimately have no idea what infrastructure provisioning tool to use anymore. I normally defaulted to Saltstack Masterless and Chef via Packer. What "simple" tool is left anymore for me to create my immutable AMIs that aren't bound by some license?

For immutable infra, shell scripts are king. You're essentially just installing packages and copying files around, there's really no need to get any more complicated than that.

Re: CINC Is Not Chef

#53

I haven't encountered any Chef code in almost ten years. For the stragglers not yet primarily on Kubernetes and Terraform, I see Ansible and some extra Terraform. Maybe I see some Salt here and there. These are just my anecdotes, for sure, but (also anecdotal) I rarely hear of other "ops" type people using Chef, and most of the ones I know never got more than just their feet wet with Chef (the SaltStack beta was out…

I committed some Chef code into production today, at a FAANG no less.

It's not great, but it works I guess. I do wish we were on SaltStack or Ansible instead.

Re: CINC Is Not Chef

#54
post #37

What is Chef? This website fails to answer that.

To quote the first line of the website: > A Free-as-in-Beer distribution of the open source software of Chef Software Inc. See goals for details, or follow our blog for updates on the project.

Yes, I clicked details. It told me, again, that this is a chef distribution. What is chef, I asked after reading the details page, again.

(Only then did I originally post my question to Hackernews. I can read. The info just is not there.)

Re: CINC Is Not Chef

#55
post #3

I'm dumb and can't figure out wtf this is.

Chef is an infrastructure as code configuration system. The binaries are now proprietary. This is a FOSS replacement.

The Chef-branded distribution is still built from the same open source repositories that the CINC project is built from; it isn't proprietary. It has an additional EULA that requires people to accept and thus [presumably] pay for.

It's basically the same model as Red Hat. Except Chef never had the market penetration and brand recognition as a trusted source that Red Hat has.

Signed, someone who worked for Chef for almost 13 years.

Re: CINC Is Not Chef

#56

I haven't encountered any Chef code in almost ten years. For the stragglers not yet primarily on Kubernetes and Terraform, I see Ansible and some extra Terraform. Maybe I see some Salt here and there. These are just my anecdotes, for sure, but (also anecdotal) I rarely hear of other "ops" type people using Chef, and most of the ones I know never got more than just their feet wet with Chef (the SaltStack beta was out…

I committed some Chef code into production today, at a FAANG no less. It's not great, but it works I guess. I do wish we were on SaltStack or Ansible instead.

this is interesting to me, i know Facebook still uses Chef, are there any other FAANGs that do?

Re: CINC Is Not Chef

#57
post #25

I legitimately have no idea what infrastructure provisioning tool to use anymore. I normally defaulted to Saltstack Masterless and Chef via Packer. What "simple" tool is left anymore for me to create my immutable AMIs that aren't bound by some license?

For creating AMIs? Probably Ansible or something similar. Chef is great for ongoing management of servers, but not so good for a one-shot config run like you would do if you're creating AMIs.

I still use it for that. Built a really nice packer based process that pulls in Chef cookbooks and applies them in zero mode. Even have an integration test of the resulting AMI in later stages using test kitchen (Chef's "killer app" imo) with the EC2 driver to spin up an instance with the AMI and run Inspec tests on it.
Post reply on HN