On Aug 10, 2012, at 20:49, Nathanael Burton <nathanael.i.bur...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I personally equate OpenStack to the Linux Kernel. It's the foundation and
> core components that, in OpenStack's case, make up an Infrastructure as as
> Service (IaaS) system, a "cloud" kernel. We should expect the core
> components and APIs to be stable with sane deprecation policies, but
> OpenStack shouldn't do everything for everyone. It should facilitate and
> provide the stable framework or foundation in which to build production
> quality, large scale (and small) public and private IaaS systems. In and of
> itself I believe OpenStack is not an IaaS distribution, ala Linux
> distributions (Debian, Fedora, RedHat, SuSe, Ubuntu) which take the Linux
> kernel and build all the user-space and complementary services that make up a
> manageable, secure, monitored system.
>
An even better example might be Apache. They have their own foundation and have
a number of services that get installed to machines, but they don't have a
distribution or any clear deployment solutions. Some of their applications
such as the httpd are just core pieces that get installed to a single system
and multiple services on multiple machines don't communicate, but others are
horizontally scaling solutions with inter-process communication, such as
Hadoop. Whatever the case, they're still not building a distribution.
OpenStack in some ways appears to be the kernel on which applications run, but
its applications are just applications. If the question is where the foundation
draws the line at acceptance of projects, it is an interesting one... as long
as there is a foundation, you can't really use Linux as any sort of example.
Instead, if you want to draw parallels to operating systems, you'll have to
look more closely to the BSD systems.
With BSD, they've coupled the kernels and the distributions. I do not think
this is a model that OpenStack should follow, but I do see a tendency of some
toward this. Instead, I believe the community and the foundation should move
into the direction of Apache.
If someone wants to create their own independent distribution, they should, but
it shouldn't be part of the project or blessed by the foundation. Instead, they
would follow the steps of Slackware, Debian, and Gentoo; not the steps taken by
FreeBSD. The community already has a number of emerging proprietary and/or
corporate-sponsored distributions, it would not do the community a favor for
the foundation to create its own.
Regards,
Eric Windisch
(sent from my iPad)
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
