Open Stack

Excerpts from Joshua Harlow's message of 2017-03-10 10:09:24 -0800:
> 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.
> 

Good luck. I can't see how you get an investor to enable you to do that
in this context without an absolute _mountain_ of relatively predictable
service-industry profit involved.