OpenStack needs more than one hat.
Posted by: Nick Chace
Looks like it is becoming fashionable to scold OpenStack. This is natural, each technology experiences growing pains when it is already advanced enough that people want to use it, but not so advanced as to meet 100% of everyone’s expectations.
OpenStack seems to be at this stage right now. Gartner complains that OpenStack lacks focus . One of the former participants complains that the Ceilometer is ... less than it should . And now Matt Asay from ReadWrite has joined this majority, believing that OpenStack should be a leader , and nominating Red Hat for this position (Red Hat).
Matt believes that OpenStack cannot develop properly without a strong hand and that Red Hat is best suited to the role of such a strong hand that would lead (or even control) the direction of the development of OpenStack.
')
I do not in any way deny the significance of Red Hat in the OpenStack project. Still, this is the participant number 1 in terms of the code entered into the database; no one argues with this. But I would definitely disagree with some of Matt's arguments.
Matt believes that the current development path of OpenStack has serious problems.
He says that someone has to step forward and take responsibility, which sometimes means stopping new developments:
On the one hand, OpenStack damage is caused by chaotic product management. The best open source projects, such as Linux, have a strong team of a few managers who know the price of the word "No." But OpenStack tends to say “Yes” to every new feature that guarantees neither compatibility nor resolution of complex and tedious problems. This can be caused by a lack of a clear vision of what is, and what is not, OpenStack, according to Gartner .
Part of the problem mentioned in this statement may be due to some confusion not with what is / is not OpenStack, but rather with what is and does not apply to OpenStack. The fact that a project has begun and is being worked on does not mean that it is included in OpenStack.
Also, didn’t the very same experts who just now complain that OpenStack is doing too much, that we are innovating fast enough to compete, complained just a few months ago? Even Matt is not happy with the lack of innovation in OpenStack. Innovation is the result of an opportunity to develop a project, since it seems important. You can not have a truly innovative environment in which one vendor can wrap the project unilaterally.
Partly, Matt believes, the problem lies in the fact that the OpenStack developers are working on what interests them, and not on solving the "complex and tedious problems" mentioned. But he makes an assumption that is generally wrong with respect to OpenStack.
But part of the reason may be the fact that, perhaps, OpenStack is being developed thanks to developers who do this out of love for development, and not out of concern for the end user / operator of the cloud. This is a problem inherent in many open source projects in which participants are put above users . Such a philosophy is non-constructive and irrational.
I do not hint that OpenStack cannot better meet the needs of users and operators; this is a completely different task. But the idea of OpenStack developers as people who participate in the project “for the love of development” is fundamentally wrong. Yes, almost all of them do their work with great enthusiasm. And almost all of them get paid for it.
OpenStack is different from many other open source projects. Most of its participants are involved in the project on behalf of companies, and these companies pay them a salary not out of the goodness of their corporate heart, but because they have a business problem that needs to be solved. These companies expect OpenStack to perform a specific function for real clients, and when this does not happen, they pay developers to create the necessary functionality. This means that the OpenStack developers are working on real-life tasks for real users and operators, while undoubtedly enjoying their work and therefore do not look for another. They are engaged in the development of not of sports interest.
Matt also claims that any project that starts like OpenStack will eventually lead to a “winner takes all” situation.
Free software development is usually based on the “winner takes all” principle. At Linux, the winner (Red Hat) got it all. In Android, the winner (Samsung) got it all. Open source projects implemented by organizations with the participation of a large number of product vendors, which are subject to further refinement, almost always end with the “winner takes all” scenario. Yes, this has not happened in Hadoop, but this is the exception, not the rule.
You know, as they say in the stock market: "past performance does not talk about future results." OpenStack is a free software development project under the auspices of a non-profit organization, this is true. But for several reasons, it is different from Linux or Android.
First, there are simply too many leading players in it, whose future in a certain non-trivial manner depends on OpenStack. IBM, Dell, AT & T, Cisco, HP and 23 other companies (including, of course, Red Hat) have committed themselves not only to provide financial support for OpenStack, but also "to align strategies with the OpenStack mission." Both HP and IBM have launched public clouds, at least partly based on OpenStack. They are not going to give in and will not allow any other vendor to dictate to them the direction of the project.
There are also a number of individual participants to be reckoned with. Despite the incredible estimates that several thousand people worked on the Linux kernel, in fact, after 20 years of its existence, fewer than 600 names are listed in the Linux 3.10 CREDITS file. In just 3 years, almost twice as many people participated in OpenStack, and this is in one development cycle.
As for Android, it was not originally a project with ordinary members, being launched inside Google.
All this leads me to a conclusion regarding comparison with Hadoop. Matt calls Hadoop an exception, but in reality Hadoop may simply be a “canary in the mine” - a precursor to the fact that commoditization that we have seen in the IT industry is applicable not only to hardware, but also to similar large-scale projects. Perhaps the days when one company could suddenly break into a project and get everything already in the past.
I talked a lot about whether Red Hat can take on the “leader” of OpenStack, but only time will answer that question. Instead, the main question that needs to be asked is whether it would be good?
Obviously, that would be good for Red Hat. Matt is right to say that OpenStack has the best chance (at least for now) in the private cloud industry, where we do not compete with Amazon, and, of course, Red Hat is the vendor that would get the most benefit in this market. . And, of course, for OpenStack, it would be nice to have such a promoter with great potential, who would bring her to the club of participating companies.
But this is not control over the direction of development of the project. Is the development of OpenStack chaotic ? Of course. Is every idea a good one? Of course not. But great ideas usually do not appear in the orderly process of the “planned trip”. If they arise, then from such a chaos, because this chaos feeds the needs of real customers who need real solutions right now. If one vendor tried to influence the project to develop in the right, in his opinion, direction, we would get a project that would be good enough in one thing - in what one vendor wanted. But someone else's usage scenarios could easily be ignored and even ordered to live long.
OpenStack is just interesting because of how many companies that, under normal circumstances, are competitors, work together to make OpenStack the best it can be. How many of them would leave the project if they had to obey Red Hat's desire to create a product tailored to the needs of Red Hat?
When the question of “leadership” arose for the last time, our CEO, Adrian Ionel, noted that, despite the fact that leadership is important, it is not as important as momentum. Matt argues that projects whose development has given impetus may fail, citing OS / 2 and OpenOffice as an example. As for OS / 2, it was not an open source project; behind him were two companies (Microsoft and IBM), one of which was also a competitor. What about OpenOffice? Yes, it is true that, having bought Sun, Oracle (also the only vendor) did not want to carry this burden any further. Therefore, she transferred it to the Apache Foundation, which announced in October that the number of downloads of its software version exceeded 75 million in less than a year and a half.
Incredible what can make a development momentum.
There is no denying the fact that Red Hat is the deserved leader in OpenStack. But we said this before and say it again: the OpenStack project does not need a single vendor that dictates the conditions, the benefactor, etc.
Therefore, of course, it's cool to scold OpenStack and say that “something must be done” in order to change the project. But the fact is that OpenStack will pass through this "difficult teenage" period, when it is still clumsy and when the older ones think that "someone should take the boy by the hand." Is it possible to improve the current process? Of course. But the community can do it on their own, without the “dad” (or “mom”) telling him to “tidy up the room”.
Original article in English .
Looks like it is becoming fashionable to scold OpenStack. This is natural, each technology experiences growing pains when it is already advanced enough that people want to use it, but not so advanced as to meet 100% of everyone’s expectations.
OpenStack seems to be at this stage right now. Gartner complains that OpenStack lacks focus . One of the former participants complains that the Ceilometer is ... less than it should . And now Matt Asay from ReadWrite has joined this majority, believing that OpenStack should be a leader , and nominating Red Hat for this position (Red Hat).
Matt believes that OpenStack cannot develop properly without a strong hand and that Red Hat is best suited to the role of such a strong hand that would lead (or even control) the direction of the development of OpenStack.
')
I do not in any way deny the significance of Red Hat in the OpenStack project. Still, this is the participant number 1 in terms of the code entered into the database; no one argues with this. But I would definitely disagree with some of Matt's arguments.
“No” is not always the right answer.
Matt believes that the current development path of OpenStack has serious problems.
He says that someone has to step forward and take responsibility, which sometimes means stopping new developments:
On the one hand, OpenStack damage is caused by chaotic product management. The best open source projects, such as Linux, have a strong team of a few managers who know the price of the word "No." But OpenStack tends to say “Yes” to every new feature that guarantees neither compatibility nor resolution of complex and tedious problems. This can be caused by a lack of a clear vision of what is, and what is not, OpenStack, according to Gartner .
Part of the problem mentioned in this statement may be due to some confusion not with what is / is not OpenStack, but rather with what is and does not apply to OpenStack. The fact that a project has begun and is being worked on does not mean that it is included in OpenStack.
Also, didn’t the very same experts who just now complain that OpenStack is doing too much, that we are innovating fast enough to compete, complained just a few months ago? Even Matt is not happy with the lack of innovation in OpenStack. Innovation is the result of an opportunity to develop a project, since it seems important. You can not have a truly innovative environment in which one vendor can wrap the project unilaterally.
OpenStack members are not amateur developers
Partly, Matt believes, the problem lies in the fact that the OpenStack developers are working on what interests them, and not on solving the "complex and tedious problems" mentioned. But he makes an assumption that is generally wrong with respect to OpenStack.
But part of the reason may be the fact that, perhaps, OpenStack is being developed thanks to developers who do this out of love for development, and not out of concern for the end user / operator of the cloud. This is a problem inherent in many open source projects in which participants are put above users . Such a philosophy is non-constructive and irrational.
I do not hint that OpenStack cannot better meet the needs of users and operators; this is a completely different task. But the idea of OpenStack developers as people who participate in the project “for the love of development” is fundamentally wrong. Yes, almost all of them do their work with great enthusiasm. And almost all of them get paid for it.
OpenStack is different from many other open source projects. Most of its participants are involved in the project on behalf of companies, and these companies pay them a salary not out of the goodness of their corporate heart, but because they have a business problem that needs to be solved. These companies expect OpenStack to perform a specific function for real clients, and when this does not happen, they pay developers to create the necessary functionality. This means that the OpenStack developers are working on real-life tasks for real users and operators, while undoubtedly enjoying their work and therefore do not look for another. They are engaged in the development of not of sports interest.
The winner gets the biggest score
Matt also claims that any project that starts like OpenStack will eventually lead to a “winner takes all” situation.
Free software development is usually based on the “winner takes all” principle. At Linux, the winner (Red Hat) got it all. In Android, the winner (Samsung) got it all. Open source projects implemented by organizations with the participation of a large number of product vendors, which are subject to further refinement, almost always end with the “winner takes all” scenario. Yes, this has not happened in Hadoop, but this is the exception, not the rule.
You know, as they say in the stock market: "past performance does not talk about future results." OpenStack is a free software development project under the auspices of a non-profit organization, this is true. But for several reasons, it is different from Linux or Android.
First, there are simply too many leading players in it, whose future in a certain non-trivial manner depends on OpenStack. IBM, Dell, AT & T, Cisco, HP and 23 other companies (including, of course, Red Hat) have committed themselves not only to provide financial support for OpenStack, but also "to align strategies with the OpenStack mission." Both HP and IBM have launched public clouds, at least partly based on OpenStack. They are not going to give in and will not allow any other vendor to dictate to them the direction of the project.
There are also a number of individual participants to be reckoned with. Despite the incredible estimates that several thousand people worked on the Linux kernel, in fact, after 20 years of its existence, fewer than 600 names are listed in the Linux 3.10 CREDITS file. In just 3 years, almost twice as many people participated in OpenStack, and this is in one development cycle.
As for Android, it was not originally a project with ordinary members, being launched inside Google.
All this leads me to a conclusion regarding comparison with Hadoop. Matt calls Hadoop an exception, but in reality Hadoop may simply be a “canary in the mine” - a precursor to the fact that commoditization that we have seen in the IT industry is applicable not only to hardware, but also to similar large-scale projects. Perhaps the days when one company could suddenly break into a project and get everything already in the past.
Doing what's best
I talked a lot about whether Red Hat can take on the “leader” of OpenStack, but only time will answer that question. Instead, the main question that needs to be asked is whether it would be good?
Obviously, that would be good for Red Hat. Matt is right to say that OpenStack has the best chance (at least for now) in the private cloud industry, where we do not compete with Amazon, and, of course, Red Hat is the vendor that would get the most benefit in this market. . And, of course, for OpenStack, it would be nice to have such a promoter with great potential, who would bring her to the club of participating companies.
But this is not control over the direction of development of the project. Is the development of OpenStack chaotic ? Of course. Is every idea a good one? Of course not. But great ideas usually do not appear in the orderly process of the “planned trip”. If they arise, then from such a chaos, because this chaos feeds the needs of real customers who need real solutions right now. If one vendor tried to influence the project to develop in the right, in his opinion, direction, we would get a project that would be good enough in one thing - in what one vendor wanted. But someone else's usage scenarios could easily be ignored and even ordered to live long.
OpenStack is just interesting because of how many companies that, under normal circumstances, are competitors, work together to make OpenStack the best it can be. How many of them would leave the project if they had to obey Red Hat's desire to create a product tailored to the needs of Red Hat?
When the question of “leadership” arose for the last time, our CEO, Adrian Ionel, noted that, despite the fact that leadership is important, it is not as important as momentum. Matt argues that projects whose development has given impetus may fail, citing OS / 2 and OpenOffice as an example. As for OS / 2, it was not an open source project; behind him were two companies (Microsoft and IBM), one of which was also a competitor. What about OpenOffice? Yes, it is true that, having bought Sun, Oracle (also the only vendor) did not want to carry this burden any further. Therefore, she transferred it to the Apache Foundation, which announced in October that the number of downloads of its software version exceeded 75 million in less than a year and a half.
Incredible what can make a development momentum.
Responding to complaints
There is no denying the fact that Red Hat is the deserved leader in OpenStack. But we said this before and say it again: the OpenStack project does not need a single vendor that dictates the conditions, the benefactor, etc.
Therefore, of course, it's cool to scold OpenStack and say that “something must be done” in order to change the project. But the fact is that OpenStack will pass through this "difficult teenage" period, when it is still clumsy and when the older ones think that "someone should take the boy by the hand." Is it possible to improve the current process? Of course. But the community can do it on their own, without the “dad” (or “mom”) telling him to “tidy up the room”.
Original article in English .
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/213035/
All Articles