294 karma · joined October 26, 2013
However, this is not that. Docker simply gives more emphasis to officially maintained docker images of popular projects, all of which have Dockerfiles available for your inspection!
That said, there is a significant difference between paying someone and getting a refund, and not paying altogether.
A better recourse would have been to go to court to get your payment back, and have independent professionals (as you already did yourself) grade the work completed. Note that in these cases the software is graded by its "peers" (average programmers), meaning that if the work is deemed "barely" acceptable, you will not see your money back.
I hope you the best on this issue and also hope that hackernews will not be used as a platform for legal/code-theft arbitration in the future.
I'm not 100% with both, but I guess you have nginx be installed in some dedicated pillar/playbook and you can have your application pillar/playbook include templated configuration files to be inserted into /etc/nginx/conf.d and notify the service to be reloaded somehow.
There are two models for delivering state to your infrastructure nodes. Pulling and Pushing configuration. Ansible Pushes code from the controller to your nodes, while salt, puppet and chef all pull state from a master somewhere.
Like twic says, Ansible does not have a master. The original author says no masters means faster performance. What he means is that pulling configuration from a remote checkout equals faster performance, which is true because it can be loadbalanced etc.
A chef/puppet master can have features such as search and service discovery that should be a large red flag for SPOF problems.
Whats more ozone does not store any state, rather it stores it in a zookeeper/etcd cluster so you are in control of your meta-data.
[0] http://blog.docker.io/2013/09/docker-joyent-openvpn-bliss/
find somealbum-with-cds -type f -name "*.flac" -print0 | xargs -0 metaflac --add-replay-gain