[OpenStack Foundation] OpenStack core and interoperability
jimjag at gmail.com
Thu Oct 31 17:28:13 UTC 2013
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
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
> 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.
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
> 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
> 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
> 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...
More information about the Foundation