For better understanding, we will compare Chef with some of the most popular 
infrastructure automation tools, which are the competitors of Chef.
Chef versus Puppet
The following are the key differences between Puppet and Chef:
• Puppet uses a custom, JSON-like language. Although a Ruby option is 
available with Puppet, while in Chef, you write in Ruby. The chef is purely a 
Domain-Specific Language (DSL), which extends the Ruby language to the 
resources that are useful to manage hosts and their applications. The unique 
quality of Ruby is that if you are writing, then you can get simple stuff done 
even without actually knowing Ruby. Therefore, Chef is preferred by most 
of the software developers or web developers.
• Puppet is still struggling with proper documentation and webinar 
sessions for learners and developers, while Chef is very accurate with its 
documentation, training materials, recent updates, and releases. It has hosted 
various webinar sessions. Therefore, from a learning perspective, Chef is the 
preferred choice over Puppet.
It is true that Chef is very much influenced by Puppet. Adam Jacobs 
contributed to the creation of Chef and he was once a Puppet user himself. 
Therefore, it is obvious that developers of Chef have learned from Puppet 
itself to make Chef much better and more flexible for users.
• Chef provides many more cloud integration options. We can integrate 
through APIs to different types of cloud providers such as AWS, 
Rackspace, MS Azure, OpenStack, Eucalyptus, VMware ESXi, VMware 
vCenter, VMware vCloud, and vCloud Air. While in Puppet, these kinds 
of integrations are not properly enabled, although Puppet supports cloud 
providers to some extent.
• It has been observed that the Chef community provides very good support 
and gives quick responses to user queries for any problem faced while 
installing, using, and debugging Chef scripts. While using Puppet, we cannot 
expect promptness in response, therefore, Chef users are much more satisfied 
than Puppet users. Hence, Chef has become a more preferable choice of 
developers. Chef has a variety of choices according to customer use cases. 
We can use private, open-source Chef or hosted Chef according to our use 
case, but in Puppet, we don't have this type of option. Therefore, Chef is 
much more flexible in terms of usage.
Chef versus CFEngine
The following are the key differences between Chef and CFEngine:
• CFEngine is very much older than Chef; it was developed by Mark 
Burgess in 1993. CFEngine is also called the grandfather of configuration 
automation tools.
• CFEngine runs on C while Chef runs on Ruby. This is the major problem 
with CFEngine because C is a low-level language and most of the 
communities don't support C. It takes much effort to learn CFEngine, while 
The chef can be learned easily by developers. Therefore, Chef is the preferred 
option nowadays for system administrators with limited coding experience.
• CFEngine has been present in the market for the last 20 years. According to 
CFEngine's site, currently, they are managing more than 10 million nodes 
and have a good list of customer support, but as we know, the current IT 
infrastructure scenario is very much based on virtualization and cloud. Chef 
serves perfectly for current industrial automation needs and is the preferred 
choice of reputed organizations such as Amazon and Facebook.
• One more problem with CFEngine is its documentation. Being an open 
source community, they have less focus on the documentation of the latest 
releases and learning tutorials, while Chef has a strong community support 
for proper documentation and provides the latest training material to all users. 
Therefore, the popularity of Chef is increasing day by day and it has gone on 
to become the most popular open-source automation tool.
Here, we got the conceptual understanding of Chef and its effectiveness over other 
configuration automation competitors. In Chef, there are different components that 
interact with one another during the execution and installation of scripts, which we 
are going to learn in the next chapter.

Comments
Post a Comment