[OT] any eqivalent of systemimager

Thomas Neumann blacky+fai at fluffbunny.de
Tue Feb 14 12:22:28 CET 2012

Thomas Lange wrote:
> FAI is no image installer but a way of doing an fully automated
> installation, controlled by scripts. Using FAI, image backups are not
> needed any more.

There's a difference between 'needed' and 'required'. :(

I have run into some guys which required absolutely 100% identical
installations. In my opinion it was just some 'cover my ass' tactic.
Where's the difference if the system is created by deploying an image or
the OS installed from a customized mirror holding the officially
sanctioned (by the company not the distribution) software release version?

a) I worked in a different team & environment, so I didn't have to comply
to these rules.
b) I don't work for that company any more.

If I had to comply to their rules then it probably would have ended in fai
dd'ing an 'officially signed' OS image.

I do understand if some software requires specific version of libraries
and stuff. After all the software was developed and tested against these
software versions and strange errors may occur otherwise. What I don't
understand is why it is necessary to require every single software package
on a server having its specific version. This smells a lot like "We don't
know why it works, but it does work. DON'T TOUCH ANYTHING!"

More information about the linux-fai mailing list