Open Stack

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Monty Taylor <mordred at inaugust.com> wrote:

> Yes, learning from the past. And yes open web. However, note that the
> numbers of players and scale of early stage business attention is quite
> different.
>

The numbers are yes, but the situation is not. And even the number are not
all that different, if one looks at the relative scale instead of absolute
numbers.

>
> Also, this is the second time you've suggested that you think OpenStack
> thinks it's too special and could learn more from its predecessors. I think
> that you're potentially missing the fact that OpenStack is largely
> descended from Ubuntu and MySQL in it's structure and approach and has
> taken many lessons to heart. But it's also important to forge the ground in
> front of us now, and not get blinded by the battles of 20 years ago, both
> good and bad.
>

Hubris is the enemy of progress. No one is suggesting being "blinded" by
battles, but rather instead *learning* from them.


>
> New times call for new choices sometimes. Apache created a new license
> back when, ignoring the existing ones. We're using it, learning. But, we're
> also forging ahead where it makes sense.
>

Ignoring? Hardly.

But that's just it... the times are "kinda" new, not completely new. Maybe
if you had been around back then you'd realize that. That's the value of
experience.


> So far, I think we're doing pretty well.


You are. I was just proposing that possibly listening to others might help
do better. The whole idea of collaboration is listening and learning from
people.

>
>
> Jim Jagielski <jimjag at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Monty Taylor <mordred at inaugust.com>wrote:
>
>> If OpenStack all of a sudden became a
>> set of interfaces, then the goal of an Open cloud would, I'm pretty
>> certain, become lost.
>
>
> It really depends on the strength of the community around those
> "interfaces"...
>
> I use the term interface, in this context at least, very loosely. Think of
> it more as the set or protocols and standards. In this meaning, having a
> default, FOSS implementation, managed by a neutral entity with a real
> strong community behind it is *crucial*.
>
> Not to reference Apache httpd again, but the concerns and issues regarding
> an "Open Cloud" is not so much different than the "old" days of an "Open
> Web". During those times, there was *significant* incentive for externals
> to drive the web, to create their own "version" of the web. AOL tried it,
> and it was the availability of Apache, as well as the huge amount of
> community around Apache and its status as a reference implementation that
> allowed us back then to stop AOL's efforts in their tracks. You can find
> similar parallels in other areas as well.
>
> Let's not think that OpenStack is sooooo unique that it has nothing that
> can be learned by others who came before. Isn't that what true Open Source
> is about?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20131031/630ecb9d/attachment.html>