Open Stack

Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2018-04-22 15:10:40 +0200:
>> For the product fit, there is also a lot of room for interpretation. For
>> me it boils down to whether "OpenStack" (the product) is better with
>> that project "in" rather than with that project "out". Sometimes it's an
>> easy sell: if a group wants to collaborate on packaging OpenStack for a
>> certain format/distro/deployment tool, it's clearly a win. In that case>> more is always better. But in most cases it's not as straightforward.
>> There is always tension between added functionality on one side, and
>> complexity / dilution / confusion on the other. Every "service" project
>> we add makes OpenStack more complex to explain, cross-project work more
>> difficult and interoperability incrementally harder. Whatever is added
>> has to be damn interesting to counterbalance that. The same goes for
> 
> Why do you think OpenStack has more trouble explaining our feature set
> than other cloud systems that have a similarly diverse array of
> features?

You mean compared to AWS ? It's not the same thing to explain a set of
APIs to end users of the cloud and to describe available components to
the deployers of the cloud, especially newcomers. For example, Zun API
users don't have to know if it relies on Heat, Magnum or Nova to
actually do its magic behind the scenes. A Zun deployer absolutely needs
to know that.

I hope that the Constellation concept will help the latter traverse our
product map more efficiently.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)