Open Stack

Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Joshua Harlow's message of 2017-03-09 21:53:58 -0800:
>> Renat Akhmerov wrote:
>>>> On 10 Mar 2017, at 06:02, Zane Bitter<zbitter at redhat.com
>>>> <mailto:zbitter at redhat.com>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 08/03/17 11:23, David Moreau Simard wrote:
>>>>> The App Catalog, to me, sounds sort of like a weird message that
>>>>> OpenStack somehow requires applications to be
>>>>> packaged/installed/deployed differently.
>>>>> If anything, perhaps we should spend more effort on advertising that
>>>>> OpenStack provides bare metal or virtual compute resources and that
>>>>> apps will work just like any other places.
>>>> Look, it's true that legacy apps from the 90s will run on any VM you
>>>> can give them. But the rest of the world has spent the last 15 years
>>>> moving on from that. Applications of the future, and increasingly the
>>>> present, span multiple VMs/containers, make use of services provided
>>>> by the cloud, and interact with their own infrastructure. And users
>>>> absolutely will need ways of packaging and deploying them that work
>>>> with the underlying infrastructure. Even those apps from the 90s
>>>> should be taking advantage of things like e.g. Neutron security
>>>> groups, configuration of which is and will always be out of scope for
>>>> Docker Hub images.
>>>>
>>>> So no, we should NOT spend more effort on advertising that we aim to
>>>> become to cloud what Subversion is to version control. We've done far
>>>> too much of that already IMHO.
>>> 100% agree with that.
>>>
>>> And this whole discussion is taking me to the question: is there really
>>> any officially accepted strategy for OpenStack for 1, 3, 5 years?
>> I can propose what I would like for a strategy (it's not more VMs and
>> more neutron security groups...), though if it involves (more) design by
>> committee, count me out.
>>
>> I honestly believe we have to do the equivalent of a technology leapfrog
>> if we actually want to be relevant; but maybe I'm to eager...
>>
>
> Open source isn't really famous for technology leapfrogging.

Time to get famous.

I hate accepting what the status quo is just because it's not been 
famous (or easy, or turned out, or ...) before.

>
> And before you say "but Docker.." remember that Solaris had zones 13
> years ago.
>
> What a community like ours is good at doing is gathering all the
> exciting industry leading bleeding edge chaos into a boring commodity
> platform. What Zane is saying (and I agree with) is let's make sure we see
> the whole cloud forest and not just focus on the VM trees in front of us.
>
> I'm curious what you (Josh) or Zane would change too.
> Containers/apps/kubes/etc. have to run on computers with storage and
> networks. OpenStack provides a pretty rich set of features for giving
> users computers with storage on networks, and operators a way to manage
> those. So I fail to see how that is svn to "cloud native"'s git. It
> seems more foundational and complimentary.