On 02/08/2016 08:54 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
<snip>
> Would our votes change if Poppy had support for OpenCDN (imagine it's being
> maintained) even if that solution is terrible?
>
> I guess my question is: When do we start considering a project to be
> safe from
> an open source perspective? Because, having support for 1 opensource
> technology
> doesn't mean it provides enough (or good) open source ways to deploy the
> software. If the only supported open solution is *terrible* then
> deployers would
> be left with only commercial solutions to choose from.
There is a lot of difference between 1 and 0 options, even if 1 isn't a
great option. It also means the design has been informed by open
backends, and not just commercial products.
I think one could also consider Neutron originally started in such a
state. openvswitch was definitely not mature technology when this effort
started. You pretty much could only use commercial backends and have
anything work. The use in OpenStack exposed issues, people contributed
to proper upstream, things got much much better. We now have a ton of
open backends in Neutron. That would never have happened if the projects
started with 0.
The flip side is that CDN is a problem space that no consumers or ops
are interested in open backends. That's ok, however, if that's the case,
it doesn't feel OpenStack to me. Just being overlays for commercial
services seems a different thing that the rest of what's in OpenStack
today.
I think this is a place where there are lots of reasonable and different
points of view. And if it was clear cut there wouldn't be the need for
discussion.
-Sean
--
Sean Dague
http://dague.net
__________________________________________________________________________
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
