Open Stack

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Joshua Harlow <harlowja at fastmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Josh,
I'd like to see what you think should be done.

Thanks,
Dims

>
> 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
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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



-- 
Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims