We have Red Hat Satellites and looked into Red Hat Insights, which we are still not fully deployed on yet. The integration between Red Hat solutions is seamless.

We looked into BigFix. I also looked at SaltStack and Puppet, but didn't get anywhere with that. I wanted something that had ease from a management perspective. Other solutions besides Ansible needed us to use agents, and I felt that would cause too many problems. Management didn't want a disruption of servers or downtime. I couldn't give them the assurance that installing something with an agent would not cause issues. So, this affected our decision to go with Ansible.

I don't think any product that we looked into could compare to Ansible.

We also considered UDeploy but did not get to the point of comparing it to the solution.

Ansible seems to have been quite well received. There are competitors, or there were when I started using it several years ago, but Red Hat, with community development, has become the easiest to use, compared to Puppet or Chef. That is how Ansible gained popularity across the IT market.

Another element in why Ansible became so popular is the way things are being pushed to the end nodes. We're using existing SSH connectivity, which is a common way to manage Unix servers. That became available out-of-the-box. The competitors usually ask you to install agents and that brings with it challenges, such as how to orchestrate installing agents. Ansible does not suffer from that problem. Every Unix server must have SSH enabled by default and Ansible simply uses that.

We have evaluated other solutions but this is the one that best meets our need for provisioning automation and addresses the different infrastructure and cloud providers we use

Previously, we had BigFix and considered other solutions. However, when Ansible came in, and we studied it a bit, we felt that it would be easy to understand and easy to implement. The learning curve was small. 

We compared it to other configuration management tools before choosing Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform. We did not choose others since they were not as centralized. It doesn't need a server since you can run it from your clients, and it doesn't need a central deployment service or server.

Apart from the fact that Ansible is agentless and open source, it's the best because you only require an IP and the credentials of any target server, and half of your work is done.

We considered Chef and Puppet, which are very similar to Ansible. However, they have a more Ruby-based programming language. Therefore, it takes more time to learn and incorporate into a company. Ansible is easier for everyone to understand what is going on without actually knowing the programming language.

We chose Ansible for simplicity. Ansible is easy to set up, then get up and running in about a day or so. With Chef, I would have had to sit there and learn it, so the time constraints didn't really work out.

We do use Puppet and Chef in some other areas. However, Ansible is our dominant platform.

Salt (or SaltStack) is a similar tool, but does have an agent. There are other tools like Chef or Puppet that use languages other than Python. Ansible was chosen based on these characteristics and the others were not evaluated after this initial choice.

Puppet and Chef are cool, and have been in the game much longer, but Ansible is way better.

I looked at Puppet and Chef. They are good tools, but there is a language barrier.

I've been using Python for more than six years. Using Ansible was a piece of cake for me.

Also, Puppet requests an agent. As with many places that I looked at it, it was a no-go if you have to install agent. We have a client system and need to install a client to configure or maintain our systems, so it is a no-go with an agent.  

With Ansible, it can remotely execute tasks and do its job.

I researched with other tools, but I still chose Ansible. One reason, it was agentless. With other tools, I had to install agents. Ansible has a big plus factor being agentless.

It is slower than other solutions.

Terraform is better for infrastructure provisioning. However, once the infrastructure is provisioned, we don't see any alternatives to Ansible.

I was a very big Bash script guy years ago on automating deployments. Then, I moved into Puppet. I did Puppet for a few years, and was very involved in the community there as well. After that, I moved over to SaltStack. The design of SaltStack was a bit complicated, as it felt very split brain. So, I did that for about six months, then I decided to look more at Ansible, which I dabbled with for about two years before I started using it. It was a little complicated to use as the action system was weird, but they have over come a lot of those issues. Now, the Ansible modules are simple and easy to use, so I moved to Ansible and haven't changed since then.

Chef, Puppet, Saltstack. Ansible proved to have the most traction and its orchestration use-case was a bit different than the configuration management one.

I did some training and I've messed around with Terraform. They do have providers for Palo, specifically. But in network, I'm dealing with mostly bare metal devices. And Terraform, that's just not what it's meant to do. I was trying to see if I could do some things with it, but it's not the right solution.

Some of my peers dealing with servers, they use a lot of Terraform because they can say, "Well, we have an environment that needs to be four to eight servers. Create the Terraform configuration and the TF files and TFR files and just let it do its thing." But I can't really do that with 1,500 physical devices that already exist.

I have looked at Puppet because they are now trying to get into the network space, but it is not that easy. The feeling of the product is not as good. 

I've used Salt and I've used Puppet. The reason I like Ansible is, first, the coding of it is very straightforward, it's very human-readable. I'm also on a contract, and I can clearly iterate and bring people up to speed very quickly on writing a Playbook, compared with writing up a Puppet manifest or a Salt script.

We did not evaluate other options.