Thats the power of opensource. You don't HAVE to do it with investors and business plans. You can do it in a garage, if you have the right idea! :)
Thanks, Kevin ________________________________________ From: Clint Byrum [cl...@fewbar.com] Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 11:03 AM To: openstack-dev Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][appcat] The future of the App Catalog 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<zbit...@redhat.com > >>>> <mailto:zbit...@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. __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@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-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
