[HN Gopher] Fabric is a Python library designed to execute shell...
___________________________________________________________________
Fabric is a Python library designed to execute shell commands
remotely over SSH
Author : EntICOnc
Score : 25 points
Date : 2022-05-27 12:03 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.fabfile.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.fabfile.org)
| mardix wrote:
| Glad Fabric is still around. But Ansible is simpler and the way
| to really go now.
|
| You focus mainly on the tasks that you need with Ansible instead
| of the scripts.
|
| Also you have a whole community of Ansible plugins that you can
| reuse for your own.
|
| Fabric was good at one point, but it missed the migration period
| to Python 3, hence pushing everyone away.
|
| I'm not even sure Fabric is on the safest Python 3.8 yet.
|
| Fabric was fun though.
| barnabee wrote:
| For the rare occasions I need something like this, I'm glad
| Fabric exists. I find Ansible to be almost unusably obtuse, it
| does not gel with how I think about networked systems at all.
| arun6582 wrote:
| I liked fabric a lot But trying to use fabric for everything
| feels like reinventing the wheel. Ansible already does those
| stuff
| nomel wrote:
| Fabric uses Paramiko, which is GNU, which means the lawyers at my
| company said that I couldn't use it, since I would be
| distributing it to some extent (for use at vendor site).
|
| Is it a dirty industry secret that most people/companies who use
| these open source libraries are violating their licenses,
| especially around the distribution? I always see great libraries
| posted on HN, but I don't see how anyone can actually use them,
| in a professional setting.
| josephcsible wrote:
| > which is GNU, which means the lawyers at my company said that
| I couldn't use it
|
| Then either your company is doing something evil or those
| lawyers are idiots. Nothing in the GPL treats commercial use
| any differently than non-commercial use, and you're allowed to
| distribute GPL'd software as long as you make the GPL'd source
| available to whoever you make the binaries available to.
| nomel wrote:
| > GPL'd source available to whoever you make the binaries
| available to.
|
| Or, perhaps compliance for this is their exact concern.
| cozzyd wrote:
| Unless you're just distributing .pyc files, I think for
| Python you are distributing the source for "free"
| closeparen wrote:
| The recipient of an on prem installation of proprietary
| Python software may have visibility of the source but
| they don't have permission to distribute it to others, as
| GPL would require.
| sigjuice wrote:
| Don't see Paramiko in the list of GNU packages.
|
| https://www.gnu.org/software/software.en.html#allgnupkgs
| speps wrote:
| If I understand right, it's fine for commercial use as long as
| you don't modify it. If you do, you have to publish the
| modified version under GPL. Your lawyers are probably right to
| be so paranoid though, it's very hard to track and if found it
| can cost millions...
| DarylZero wrote:
| No, the code that uses the library is a derivative work of
| the library, whether or not it modifies the library.
|
| GPL still allows commercial use in any case, it just requires
| you release your code under GPL.
| bramblerose wrote:
| Paramiko is licensed under the _L_ GPL, though, so that
| doesn't apply here.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| Anyone who uses this, is it used for remote system management, or
| as a way to "remote" expensive operations?
| kevwil wrote:
| I'm glad Fabric is still around. I used it at my previous
| company. I might even prefer it over the Ansible we use at my
| current company.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-27 23:02 UTC)