puppet VS operations-mediawiki-config

Compare puppet vs operations-mediawiki-config and see what are their differences.


Wikimedia Foundation operates some of the largest collaborative projects in the world. This is the Puppet repo for our servers. This repository is a mirror; see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Developer_access for contributing. (by wikimedia)


⚙️ Configuration for Wikimedia Foundation wikis. This is a mirror from https://gerrit.wikimedia.org. See https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Developer_access for contributing. (by wikimedia)
Our great sponsors
  • OPS - Build and Run Open Source Unikernels
  • SonarQube - Static code analysis for 29 languages.
  • Scout APM - Less time debugging, more time building
puppet operations-mediawiki-config
1 1
219 63
3.2% -
10.0 9.9
1 day ago 7 days ago
Puppet PHP
- -
The number of mentions indicates the total number of mentions that we've tracked plus the number of user suggested alternatives.
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.


Posts with mentions or reviews of puppet. We have used some of these posts to build our list of alternatives and similar projects.


Posts with mentions or reviews of operations-mediawiki-config. We have used some of these posts to build our list of alternatives and similar projects. The last one was on 2021-10-24.
  • The falsehoods of anti-AGPL propaganda (2020)
    3 projects | news.ycombinator.com | 24 Oct 2021
    > Configuration is just a short artifact. It's not a creative work and is therefore not copyrightable at all, whether by AGPL or otherwise.

    I'm doubtful. For example https://github.com/wikimedia/operations-mediawiki-config is wikipedia's config. It is not short, and much of it is complex enough i think it would be copyrightable (ianal)

    I agree though a very traditional list of key value pairs that are simple facts like where to find the db, might lack creativity to be copyrighted (ianal). But how many real deployed systems have that simple a config. More generally i would prefer that the license was less ambigious about this especially in an international context (e.g. rules are totally different in uk over what can be copyrighted)

    > I'm not convinced obscurity helps against spam at all. DKIM and blocklists have done much more against email spam than any form of "security by obscurity" corporate scheme has.

    Gmail et al use techniques beyond dkim that are secret. However i meant more like web spam where you can't just rely on source vouching for users. For example on wikipedia there is a feature where admins can write "code" that block patterns in edits. When used against persistent vandals, they are often secret lest they use the info to adjust behaviour. That's the type of thing i mean.

    > if you are coordinating with the developers, then you have their explicit permission to temporarily withhold those changes (AGPL copyright holders can still grant exceptions to the license)

    That only works if one entity holds all the copyright. Even then, does that mean forks cannot have coordinated disclosure?

What are some alternatives?

When comparing puppet and operations-mediawiki-config you can also consider the following projects:

Mediawiki - 🌻 The collaborative editing software that runs Wikipedia. Mirror from https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/g/mediawiki/core. See https://mediawiki.org/wiki/Developer_access for contributing.