Puppet vs Chef, pro and contra from users and use cases

I already googled and read the "to-puppet-or-to-chef-that-is-the-question" article.

I'm interested in use cases, real world implementations in which people had choosen one or the other on real problems bases.

I'm particularly interested in integration with cobbler issues ( I know puppet is much a standard approach in this direction ); as anybody any experience in cobbler-chef integration ?

Thanks in advance

From serverfault AlberT

• Here is a opinion: We have tried all of them in our company and we prefere puppet. Simply because it is easy to use.

  : Have you used any front-end for monitoring Puppet execution?

  rodjek : @syrenity we use a custom nagios check that checks the mtime of $puppetvardir/state/state.yaml which only gets updated on a successful run.

  AlberT : Is chef so difficult instead? Why? What is practical difficulties encountered approaching chef that puppet bypass?

  Not Now : http://theforeman.org/wiki/foreman/Screenshots
  From QXT

• I've written a detailed comparison of Chef vs Puppet here: Puppet vs Chef: 10 reasons why Puppet wins. Although it doesn't include use cases, I hope it provides some useful starting points for people wondering which tool to choose for their infrastructure automation.

  AlberT : Very good work. Even if many of the point you wrote are bound to the simple fact that puppet is "older", and so much more "supported". Ok, it is a fact ... but I think that none would ever had used postfix becouse sendmail had already a great public... I repeat, good work, I'll take it into account

  John Arundel : AlberT - yes, Puppet has been around longer than Chef and so has many of the first-mover advantages: code maturity, developer base, installed base, mindshare - these are explicitly acknowledged in the article. Is Puppet technically superior to Chef for Linux automation tasks? Probably not. I still recommend Puppet versus Chef because it's the market leading configuration management tool.
  From John Arundel