Ansible vs Capistrano vs Salt: What are the differences?

# Introduction

Key differences between Ansible, Capistrano, and Salt:

1. **Configuration Management vs Deployment vs Orchestration**: Ansible is primarily a configuration management tool that automates the provisioning and configuration of servers, Capistrano is a deployment tool that automates the deployment of applications, and Salt is an orchestration tool that manages and coordinates the interaction between multiple systems. Each tool is designed for a specific purpose, so the choice depends on the overarching objective of the task.
2. **Agentless vs Agent-based**: Ansible is agentless, meaning it does not require any agents to be installed on the target systems, while Salt uses an agent-based approach with a master-slave architecture where agents are installed on the managed systems. Capistrano follows a similar agentless model like Ansible, further simplifying the deployment process without the need for additional setup.
3. **Language Support**: Ansible mainly uses YAML for defining playbooks and tasks, making it easy to learn and understand for beginners. Capistrano, on the other hand, is written in Ruby and requires knowledge of Ruby syntax and setting up tasks. Salt, although primarily using YAML for configuration, also supports using Python for extending functionalities and custom modules.
4. **Community and Ecosystem**: Ansible has a large and active community, providing extensive documentation, modules, and playbooks for various use cases. Capistrano, being more focused on deployment, has a smaller community compared to Ansible. Salt, with its capabilities of orchestration, boasts an active community that develops various formulas, states, and grains enhancing its functionalities.
5. **Scalability and Performance**: Ansible, being agentless, can efficiently manage a large number of systems with ease. Capistrano, designed for deployment, can handle multiple deployments simultaneously, making it suitable for CI/CD pipelines. Salt, built for orchestration, excels in managing complex infrastructure environments with its master-slave communication and event-driven architecture.
6. **Ease of Learning and Usage**: Ansible offers a low learning curve with a simple syntax, making it ideal for beginners and small to medium-sized setups. Capistrano, with its Ruby-based configuration, might be more challenging for those not familiar with Ruby. Salt, while powerful, may require more in-depth knowledge due to its robust orchestration capabilities and configuration options.

In Summary, Ansible, Capistrano, and Salt each have unique strengths in configuration management, deployment, and orchestration, respectively, catering to different needs and complexity levels within infrastructure management.