This question already has an answer here:
- Why use Chef/Puppet over shell scripts? 7 answers
The devops tools ecosystem is puzzling to me. Instead of shell scripts that work everywhere everyone in the server orchestration/management space is bolting on their own proprietary formats. Ansible has their YAML playbooks, Puppet has its class/graph language, salt like ansible has some kind of YAML format, chef is an embedded Ruby DSL. Out of all of these approaches I like chef the best because it does the simplest possible thing. So I guess one benefit is better visibility into the fleet when you use one of these tools but that's orthogonal to the actual configuration and provisioning component.
I don't quite get why everyone is trying to re-invent shell scripts with YAML because more often than not
ssh -t is all I need to get things done along with a library of some shell scripts. These scripts are usually packaged as self-contained tar files and are small and simple enough to be mixed and matched as necessary. They have zero dependencies other than
bash and will pretty much just work anywhere. So why is it then that a simple solution like that is not good enough for ansible, puppet, chef, etc.? What do all these solutions gain by replacing
bash scripts with some other format?