New design, what is the Goal here?

Jeremy Huntwork jhuntwork at
Tue Nov 29 18:50:20 PST 2005

rl at wrote:
> AFAIK people have not proposed a particular type of authentication.
> What has been proposed is that this authentication is built into alfs, 
> and that alfs is a client/server system.
> I think this adds a huge amount of pointless complexity. Imagine that 
> three of the 90 machines you want to update are turned off. An email 
> based system would use e-mails built-in store and foreward abilities. 
> An http/cron solution would also let those machines catch up in their 
> own time.

lol. I'm sorry. These solutions you're suggesting don't add pointless 
complexity? The point is there are *many* different methods that you 
*could* conceivably use now to control several automated builds at once 
using a host of tools that you must first install and configure and sort 
on each machine.

What we want is all this ability tied up nicely in one package that's 
*designed* to automate our builds and manage several machines. We're 
designing the system from scratch, but that doesn't mean that every 
piece of the puzzle has to be our code. We can use security libraries 
that already exist.

Besides, you're taking all of the fun out of it. ;P If someone is going 
to use alfs (especially in it's early stages!) to manage their 
production machines, then ultimatley their security is their own 
responsibility and they should ensure that their machines and networks 
aren't open to attack by whatever means they trust.


More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list