Open Stack

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 12:12:08PM +0100, Sean Mooney wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-04-15 at 01:17 +0000, Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com wrote:
> > This is specific to https://www.openstack.org/marketplace/distros/ and private clouds.
> sometime as a comunity we are such trolls 
> https://www.openstack.org/marketplace/distros/distribution/devstack/ds-openstack
> i love that devstack is listed there.
> although given how long it took use to stop people running in production i guess it
> qualifies as it had market usage.

This actually isn't devstack the development tool, it is a company named
Devstack that is an OpenStack vendor (not confusing at all :p). Their website is:

http://www.devstack.co.kr

I hope they're not basing their offerings on devstack the tool, but I have no
idea.

-Matt Treinish

> > We have trademarks for Compute, storage, and for Full openstack.
> > We can add trademark for baremetal for distros to market based on trademarks.
> > It will be interesting if we can make that trademark of Open Infrastructure.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Arkady
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Julia Kreger <juliaashleykreger at gmail.com> 
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 3:37 PM
> > To: Kanevsky, Arkady
> > Cc: Sean Mooney; Dmitry Tantsur; openstack-discuss
> > Subject: Re: [tc] [ironic] Promoting ironic to a top-level opendev project?
> > 
> > 
> > [EXTERNAL EMAIL] 
> > 
> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 1:04 PM <Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Good Point Sean.
> > > 
> > > Does that lead to OpenStack powered BareMetal trademark?
> > 
> > I'm not entirely sure where your thought process is going. Could you elaborate a little on what your thinking?
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Sean Mooney <smooney at redhat.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 5:38 AM
> > > To: Dmitry Tantsur; openstack-discuss
> > > Subject: Re: [tc] [ironic] Promoting ironic to a top-level opendev project?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
> > > 
> > > On Tue, 2020-04-14 at 11:45 +0200, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 7:26 PM Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On 2020-04-08 10:04:25 +0200 (+0200), Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 4:37 PM Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > Why *can't* OpenShift include OpenStack projects? I haven't 
> > > > > > > seen this adequately explained.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > It's less of a technical issue, but more of misunderstanding 
> > > > > > that including an OpenStack project does not involve literally 
> > > > > > installing OpenStack. And no matter what we think, for a lot of 
> > > > > > people OpenStack==Nova (another marketing issue to address?).
> > > > > 
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > 
> > > > > I don't understand why that would make a difference in this case, 
> > > > > unless you're saying that the people who make architectural 
> > > > > decisions about what's included in OpenShift have no actual 
> > > > > familiarity with Ironic and OpenStack. If you know anyone who 
> > > > > works at that company, can you help them understand the difference?
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Let's de-focus on OpenShift please. People who just need a bare 
> > > > metal management solution don't need to understand what OpenStack 
> > > > is. What would they assume from a quick search? The first link I've 
> > > > got by googling in a private window is our web site with:
> > > > 
> > > > OpenStack software controls large pools of compute, storage, and 
> > > > networking resources throughout a datacenter, managed through a 
> > > > dashboard or via the OpenStack API. OpenStack works with popular 
> > > > enterprise and open source technologies making it ideal for heterogeneous infrastructure.
> > > > 
> > > > Is it so unexpected they assume Ironic needs virtual machines to operate?
> > > 
> > > yes since that at no point mentions viurtual machines.
> > > openstack is not a vm managment system.
> > > even in the early days form diablo or essex openstack cloud manage baremetal computes as well as contaienr via
> > > openvz and lxc then nova docker.
> > > 
> > > kubernetes is trying to redifine anything that is not contaienr native as not cloud but the compute context
> > > (container, vm or baremetal) provided by a cloud system is an implementation detail. the phrase "OpenStack software
> > > controls large pools of compute" does not imply vm any more then "ironic implies ipmi".  ipmi is an important
> > > protocol in ironic and many of the vendor driver just ipmi with extentions but ironic does not directly imply it and
> > > openstack does not directly imply vms.
> > > 
> > > i admit there has been some misteps in this regard in terms of 
> > > openstack powered programe
> > > 
> > > specificly the "OpenStack Powered Compute" trademark
> > > 
> > > the fact it specificaly requires nova as the requirement is actully 
> > > the compute api
> > > https://opendev.org/openstack/interop/src/branch/master/2018.02.json#L
> > > 100-L193 can be consuing to some but it does not require the use of 
> > > virtual machine dirver.
> > > 
> > > the only requiremetn the list that cannot be achive with ironic today is compute-servers-resize.
> > > if the ironic node was pxe booted form a cinder volume resize would actully be doable in a diskless baremetal server
> > > scech as a blade or a rsd system.
> > > 
> > > if you look at the apiu requriement objectivly it really only requires that the api exsits to create an instance but
> > > does not state way tthat instance is. it could be an lxc contaienr or any other virt dirver that fullfuils the api
> > > requirements.
> > > 
> > > it would have been nice if this branding treated ironic and now zun i guess as first class citizens but i think that
> > > is an an artifict of the the fact the requiremetn are defiend in terms of api.
> > > 
> > > compute-servers-create dose not mean create a vm even if that is what will happen most of the time.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > On one hand, large distributions want us to have stable branches 
> > > > > > every year or two. Even what we have is too much.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On the other - we have small consumers who could benefit from 
> > > > > > just pulling the latest(ish) release and knowing that if a 
> > > > > > serous bug is found there, they won't have to update to the next 
> > > > > > feature (and potentially major) release.
> > > > > 
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > 
> > > > > This sounds like a problem shared by, well, basically every other 
> > > > > project in OpenStack too. Perhaps it's an opportunity to 
> > > > > collaborate on finding solutions.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > +1000 although I'm not sure if all projects are interested in 
> > > > +intermediate
> > > > releases. Given how many follow the cycle-with-rc model, I doubt it.
> > > > 
> > > > Dmitry
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jeremy Stanley
> > > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20200415/ecb8426a/attachment-0001.sig>