Open Stack

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...

Is
> there any ultimate community goal we’re moving to regardless of
> underlying technologies (containers, virtualization etc.)? I know we’re
> now considering various community goals like transition to Python 3.5
> etc. but these goals don’t tell anything about our future as an IT
> ecosystem from user perspective. I may assume that I’m just not aware of
> it. I’d be glad if it was true. I’m eager to know the answers for these
> questions. Overall, to me it feels like every company in the community
> just tries to pursue its own short-term (in the best case mid-term)
> goals without really caring about long-term common goals. So if we say
> OpenStack is a car then it seems like the wheels of this car are moving
> in different directions. Again, I’d be glad if it wasn’t true. So maybe
> some governance needed around setting and achieving ultimate goals of
> OpenStack? Or if they already exist we need to better explain them and
> advertise publicly? That in turn IMO could attract more businesses and
> contributors.
>
> Renat Akhmerov
> @Nokia
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev