[OddMerlin]

Why not use Ansible for something like this?

Don’t get me wrong, I love bash scripts like any other old hat, but Ansible scratches this exact itch.

You’ve got playbooks that can execute shell, provide logging, better management, history of execution, fleet management, and it’s light weight. And there’s a robust community of shared modules, etc.

[hashar]

Why add the complexity of having to maintain an Ansible installation, a logging stack, deal with their upgrades and whatever python issue one might encounter. I had the issue of Ansible builtin `shell` not doing the right thing (sh vs bash) or it being unnecessarily slow when uselessly looking up `cowsay`.

Adding layers and layers of tooling is often overkill and it is hard to bit the simplicity of 33 lines of shell when the use case is a single person doing the code, deployment and maintenance.

[OddMerlin]

I’m with you on the usecase. Simple server deployment on a VM, bash script is fine, in fact I recommend it. It’s when you start dealing with 5+ VMs that I would start looking into using a tool like Ansible.

[elevation]

Bash is better than ansible for configuring the core infrastructure underneath ansible.

In a devops workflow you "treat servers like cattle instead of pets" but your org still needs a few pets. Some host you control must either host DNS or manage your DNS provider's API key. Same for CA, IdP, git, backup and monitoring services, and the ansible machine itself. You'll have to manually configure these things before your "cattle" tools can run.

Once you're up and running, it's possible to make ansible manage it own dependencies, but this introduces circular dependencies complicates bootstrapping (consider a disaster recovery situation) and amplifies both the impact of faults and the difficulty of troubleshooting them. Do you want to be debugging python dependencies in the middle of the night so you can finally get ansible to execute the couple bash commands that will bring your ACME CA back up? I'd rather run bash directly.

At a small scale with a stable set of requirements, your core infrastructure is better served by a good operations manual and a simple deployment toolset with minimal dependencies. Plain bash fits the bill!

[prmoustache]

I think even ansible is overkill for such a simple thing. Ansible use case works better when you need to do stuff on multiple hosts.

For years I've started using and abandoned ansible and puppet recipes for setting up my own computers and everytime the conclusion was that I would spend more time installing git, ansible and puppet in the first place and debugging my recipes than using them. Now all my setup lives in shell functions in my .bashrc.d. I still need git but I don't need ansible or puppet anymore.

[bravetraveler]

Ansible is great even for simple single-host 'shell scripts'.

Lean into the module ecosystem. Want to ensure a config file is a certain way? Jinja/template it, or use lineinfile instead of echo/shell redirects.

That's a lot of mumbo-jumbo. The point is, there's a lot of stuff scripts want to do. Ansible provides these as modules. Using the modules spares you from writing code to do something in a robust/repeatable way.

The 'line in a file' example is a good case, IMO. A shell script with redirection either requires specific code to look first, or simply endlessly append. With Ansible you don't have to do all of that.

Your script needs to do something when something changed? Ansible has you covered: handlers!

Python is right within reach too. I find it a way to write Python via YML, basically.

[prmoustache]

> Using the modules spares you from writing code to do something in a robust/repeatable way.

That is a huge lie: Declarative code is still code. Using modules is similar to reusing functions. The things is, while reusability and declarative code is nice when you want to deploy and manage multiple machines and have an automated network install that bootstrap your automated configuration tool. It is worth the effort because there are many machines but all that automation need to be tested/fixed on a regular basis (distro releases, etc). If you are reinstalling your machine from an usb pendrive, or image once every so many full moons, you need first to bootstrap ansible and the playbook. How do you that in an idempotent manner? The time you have done that you are probably already ready.

The only thing I need on my dev machines is :

- my software configs: comes with a git repo of my dotfiles.

- a dev directory: mkdir is idempotent, it will not destroy dir if it exists so no need for a declarative language

- some packages: a single package install is needed. While using a configuration tool allows you to declare package name depending on distro version and regardless of package tool, usually someone who is managing 2-3 machines stick to one OS so in my case a single `dnf install -y <list of package>` is enough.

- a few tools I curl from github or other places. I have one bash function for each of them to get latest release (a one liner) and one to compare installed version with latest release and install if needed. Ansible doesn't do a better job at it. I checked ansible-galaxy for some of the tools I download, for some no module exists, for those that have modules, they are just made of ... shell scripts called by an ansible task that is larger than my own script. See example[1]

- a few desktop files, they come with my dotfiles git repo, no need to "declare them"

- a handful of stuff that comes with an install shell script (the infamous curl | bash). Ansible don't help me much or I'd have to rewrite the install script as an ansible playbook and maintain it myself forever.

No handler necessary, none of this requires a reboot or a service restart.

Also Ansible is probably the worst example as it is an half assed declarative language that doesn't even encourage idempotence. Basically it is made by and for old unix guys who want to continue writing sequencial scripts the old and crappy way while pretending they do things in a modern way. And it is the reason it has become so popular against cfengine, puppet, chef and salt. I don't see the point of using ansible if it is to have the same low standard of quality as plain old scripts.

My experience working with teams using ansible has only reinforced my view that this language is for people who like to do things the dirtiest way anyway but wrapping it in a declarative language so they can put devops engineer in their resume.

[1] https://github.com/andrewrothstein/ansible-eksctl/tree/main

[bravetraveler]

> reinstalling your machine from an usb pendrive, or image once every so many full moons, you need first to bootstrap ansible and the playbook. How do you that in an idempotent manner?

You just reinstalled; do you really care if the preparation is idempotent?

Anyway: kickstart is how I deal with that. The way one automates installations. Anyone reinstalling their workstation that often should probably look into it.

It wants a list of packages that get installed by default, Ansible is one of them. The install environment makes Ansible available, then runs ansible-pull to fetch the repository and run the play.

I hear you now: "but USB installs!"

Who is this person that does this so often to automate it, but accept clicking through the UI/installer and so on? Set up tftp and PXE already, you're neck deep.

The unix greybeards would put shell scripts in those kickstarts. I feel it's slightly improved by using playbooks held externally in SCM.

The module library doesn't cover everything, but it's great for routine system administration. It may not have the latest whizbang API.

Ansible is useful, I'm not debating this. One can write it as poorly as you represent, but they don't have to.

I do lament people writing it like scripts. They miss the point, we're in agreement there. The core modules are idempotent if used well.

The Command/Script modules shouldn't even exist in my opinion. Force people to custom-fact those things. It can be a plain text file or a robust script.

[prmoustache]

That is exactly what I am saying, nobody does it that often, so automatising is not even an option usually as things move so fast a playbook would have to be debugged and modified every time you use it.

[TheCapeGreek]

I think Ansible is a little overkill for some projects tbh. Ideally I'd love a middle ground between bash scripts and Ansible, similar to Caddy's config simplicity over nginx.

>it’s light weight

Eh, don't think that's the case for everyone.

I dabbled with Ansible at a previous job, and set up a very basic personal server setup for Nextcloud and one other app. It was much slower than if I had just written some bash scripts. Idempotency was nice, but the feedback loop wasn't great.