1. I'm loosely following the development for DSC (v3 or v2-tooling) and never have I heard Steve Lee, Michael Greene or Michael Lombardi advocate DSC as an alternative to GPOs.
2. How do you get to the conclusion that DSC is a non-standard system. What's your point of reference with that statement? I am not aware of any standard out there, but I'd love to be educated. I have the same question about the baroque-statement. Yes, DSC is old, but so are Chef and Puppet.
3. Why do you say DSC is half-baked? It was never intended to be an Alternative to Chef and Puppet, if that is what you're comparing it to. It's intended as a foundation for tools like Chef and Puppet.
3a. You want declarative state as a concept and that is exactly what DSC delivers.
4. The industry has not moved on to container images. These are two separate "movements" and there still is very much a need for bare-metal services. And this is still very prevalent with Microsoft services like AD, Exchange, SharePoint, SQL, or other Software like Veeam, ... I don't understand once more what your point of reference is with this statement.
The only part where I agree is that DSC is underfunded. That is factually true with v2, where in fact it wasn't funded at all for a decade. I believe DSC v3 is backed by Microsoft with a small budget, but it still isn't clear to me what the end goal is.
I think it is a good decision to remove the need to compile into MOF, which simplifies a lot of the process. At the same time I wonder why they would remove the LCM, which complicates the entire process of having state re+applied to a machine when it deviates locally.
And then of course, DSC v3 still doesn't do much if there's no tooling around it. Azure has configuration management based on DSC, but it is a pain to learn and to configure in my experience. I really, really wish Microsoft would have a holistic approach, but my impression is that they don't and just fiddle around individual components, without a clear picture of the desired end result.
1. I'm loosely following the development for DSC (v3 or v2-tooling) and never have I heard Steve Lee, Michael Greene or Michael Lombardi advocate DSC as an alternative to GPOs.
2. How do you get to the conclusion that DSC is a non-standard system. What's your point of reference with that statement? I am not aware of any standard out there, but I'd love to be educated. I have the same question about the baroque-statement. Yes, DSC is old, but so are Chef and Puppet.
3. Why do you say DSC is half-baked? It was never intended to be an Alternative to Chef and Puppet, if that is what you're comparing it to. It's intended as a foundation for tools like Chef and Puppet.
3a. You want declarative state as a concept and that is exactly what DSC delivers.
4. The industry has not moved on to container images. These are two separate "movements" and there still is very much a need for bare-metal services. And this is still very prevalent with Microsoft services like AD, Exchange, SharePoint, SQL, or other Software like Veeam, ... I don't understand once more what your point of reference is with this statement.
The only part where I agree is that DSC is underfunded. That is factually true with v2, where in fact it wasn't funded at all for a decade. I believe DSC v3 is backed by Microsoft with a small budget, but it still isn't clear to me what the end goal is.
I think it is a good decision to remove the need to compile into MOF, which simplifies a lot of the process. At the same time I wonder why they would remove the LCM, which complicates the entire process of having state re+applied to a machine when it deviates locally.
And then of course, DSC v3 still doesn't do much if there's no tooling around it. Azure has configuration management based on DSC, but it is a pain to learn and to configure in my experience. I really, really wish Microsoft would have a holistic approach, but my impression is that they don't and just fiddle around individual components, without a clear picture of the desired end result.