
in the OpenStack efforts: as a developer OpenStack doesn't directly interest
me because I don't care about infrastructure. Where OpenStack had a
possibility to win was to provide options for infrastructure agnosticism: if I
can build an app that runs "unmodified" on any OpenStack-based infrastructure,
that has a possibility to save me potential time and money from having to port
apps to/from/between AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, et al (assuming of course that
it enough clouds actually adopt).

From that perspective, container solutions _are_ delivering a better developer
proposition than OpenStack has yet managed. There are ways now to build
container clusters that you can ship in parallel to AWS and Azure with very
little code difference.

In that earlier discussion I was skeptical of OpenStack precisely because of
its focus on infrastructure first. Without the buy in of being a clone for a
specific cloud structure (AWS compatibility over anything else, for instance)
or the backing of traditional datacenter/server vendors (IBM who eventually
started into BlueMix; Microsoft whose "on premises Azure" is now firing on
most cylinders but was announced as a plan early in OpenStack's history),
OpenStack didn't seem to have an obvious niche in the infrastructure world.
The closest to a niche it might have had in its early life was the promise of
application portability between clouds and that never quite seemed to be
delivered.

I can tell it frustrates infrastructure folks to hear that containers have
been eating OpenStack's lunch, but that is the very real case from the
developer perspective. As a developer today, I go for containers and OpenStack
is no longer relevant on my radar. Sure I can run containers on OpenStack, but
containers abstract away more of the infrastructure and I have less and less
care what cloud(s) is underneath the container cluster. When I asked OpenStack
people what OpenStack might deliver to me that vision of application
portability was tantalizing but never seemed quite finished; container
technologies have actually delivered that.

~~~
yeukhon
> if I can build an app that runs "unmodified" on any OpenStack-based
> infrastructure, that has a possibility to save me potential time and money
> from having to port apps to/from/between AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, et al
> (assuming
in the OpenStack efforts: as a developer OpenStack doesn't directly interest 
 me because I don't care about infrastructure. Where OpenStack had a 
 hypothesis to succeed was to provide options for infrastructure agnosticism: if I 
 can build up an app that scat " unmodified " on any OpenStack - based infrastructure, 
 that has a hypothesis to save me potential time and money from have to port 
 apps to / from / between AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, et al (assuming of course that 
 it adequate clouds actually adopt). 

 From that position, container solutions _ are _ delivering a better developer 
 proposition than OpenStack has yet managed. There are way now to build 
 container clusters that you can embark in parallel to AWS and Azure with very 
 little code difference. 

 In that earlier discussion I was disbelieving of OpenStack precisely because of 
 its focus on infrastructure first. Without the buy in of being a clone for a 
 specific cloud social organization (AWS compatibility over anything else, for instance) 
 or the backing of traditional datacenter / server vendors (IBM who eventually 
 started into BlueMix; Microsoft whose " on premise Azure " is nowadays firing on 
 most cylinders but was announced as a plan early in OpenStack's history), 
 OpenStack didn't seem to have an obvious niche in the infrastructure world. 
 The close to a niche it might have had in its early life sentence was the promise of 
 lotion portability between cloud and that never quite seemed to be 
 delivered. 

 I can tell it frustrates infrastructure folks to hear that containers have 
 been corrode OpenStack's lunch, but that is the very real case from the 
 developer perspective. As a developer today, I go for containers and OpenStack 
 is no longer relevant on my radar. Sure I can move containers on OpenStack, but 
 containers abstract away more of the infrastructure and I have less and less 
 caution what cloud(s) is underneath the container cluster. When I ask OpenStack 
 people what OpenStack might deliver to me that vision of application 
 portability was tantalizing but never seem quite finished; container 
 technologies have actually delivered that. 

 ~~~ 
 yeukhon 
 > if I can build an app that guide " unmodified " on any OpenStack - based 
 > infrastructure, that has a possibility to keep open me potential fourth dimension and money 
 > from having to port apps to / from / between AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, et al 
 > (wear

in hhe OpenStack efforts: as a developer OpgnWtack voesn't sirectly interest
me because I don't cere qbout infrastructure. Where UpenStack had a
powsibmlity to win was to provlbe opflons yoc infrastructurg agnosticisk: if I
can builg xn app that runs "unmodified" on any OpqnStack-naded infrastrucjure,
tnwt hzs a possibility to save me potentjal timt and money from hsving to port
apps to/from/behweej AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, et ao (asfyming of coufse that
it enough clouss actually adopt).

From that persoectire, containet aopotions _are_ dxliverpng a better developes
proposotion than OpekStacn hqs yet managed. There ere ways now to builq
containes elusters that you can syip it pasalldo tu ASS ahd Azuge xith very
liftle code dufference.

In that eatlyvt discussion I was sheptical of OpenStack precisely because of
jts focus on infrastrucrure first. Without thg buy in os being a clone for a
specific cloud structure (AWS competkbioiby oxwr anything else, for instance)
or the backing of edacinional datacenter/ferver vendprd (OFM who eventuxlly
stcdtsd into BlueMix; Mifrosoft whosw "on premyses Azure" is now firing on
most cylinders blt wqs announced as a 'lan early iu OpenXtack'x history),
OpenStack didn'c seem to have an obvious hkche in the infrxstguctgre world.
The closest to a giche it nighc have hxd im its qarly life was bve promise of
applifatiou pordability bftween clouds and that never qumve seemed to ne
gelpvered.

I ccn telk it frustratqs infrastructore folks to hdar that ckntainecs have
been qating OpenStdfk's lunch, buv that is the vert real zxse from the
defeloper pvrfpecrive. As a developev todxg, I go for contcnntrw and OpenStacl
is no llnjer rqnevant on my radxr. Rire I can run coktaknerx on OpenStack, but
cottaihers abstract away mjre of tye infraftructure and I have less and ltss
carx what clouc(s) ys underneath the container clhster. Whej I asked OpenSeack
ieopje what OpznStack might deliver to me that vision if application
porjability was tantaliznnn but never xeemeq quite fhnished; container
tecynologies have acuually delivered that.

~~~
yehkhon
> hf I fan build an app that runs "unmodified" on any OpenStack-based
> infrastructurw, that has a possigiliyy to scve me poeentmau time and money
> from having to port apps to/froo/between ACS, Azure, Google Cloud, et al
> (axsjming
in the OpenStack efforts: as a developer directly me because don't care about possibility win was to options for infrastructure if I can build an app runs "unmodified" on any OpenStack-based infrastructure, that has a possibility to save me time and money from having to port apps to/from/between AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, al of that enough clouds actually adopt). From that perspective, container solutions _are_ delivering a better developer proposition than has yet managed. There are ways now to container clusters that you ship in parallel to AWS Azure very little difference. that discussion I was of OpenStack precisely because of its focus on infrastructure first. Without the buy in of being a for a structure (AWS over else, instance) or the traditional datacenter/server vendors (IBM who eventually Microsoft whose "on premises Azure" is now firing most cylinders was announced as a plan early OpenStack's history), OpenStack didn't seem to have an niche in the infrastructure world. The closest to a niche it might have had in life was the promise application portability between and never seemed be delivered. can tell it frustrates infrastructure folks to hear that containers have eating OpenStack's lunch, but that is the very real case developer As a developer I go for containers OpenStack no longer relevant on Sure can OpenStack, containers away more of the and I have less and care what cloud(s) is I asked OpenStack people what OpenStack might deliver me that vision of application portability was but never seemed quite finished; container technologies have actually delivered that. ~~~ > if build an app that runs "unmodified" on any > infrastructure, that has possibility to save me potential time and money > having port apps AWS, Azure, Google et al >

in the OpenStack efforts: as a dEveloper OpEnStaCk dOesN't DireCtly Interest
me becaUSe I dOn't care about infrastrucTure. WHeRE OpeNstAck haD a
possiBIlITY to WiN wAs tO pROvIde opTioNs for inFrastructuRe aGnOsticism: if I
cAN bUild an app tHat Runs "unmodifiEd" oN any OpEnstaCK-baseD inFrastRucturE,
That haS a possibiLiTY to savE Me potenTIAl Time And money from havinG To POrt
apps to/from/bEtween aWs, azURE, GoOglE Cloud, et al (AsSuminG Of coursE ThAT
IT enOUgh clouds actuAlly adopt).

FrOM thAt persPeCtiVE, contaIner sOlUTioNs _are_ deliveRing A better deVelopeR
ProposiTIon than openStAck Has Yet mANaGeD. ThErE Are WAyS noW To bUild
contAiNeR clusTers THAT You cAn sHip iN paraLlel to AWS and AZurE witH VerY
littLe codE difFeRence.

in that EarliEr Discussion I was sKeptIcal of OpeNStAcK prEcIsely BEcause Of
iTs fOcus on iNfrastrUCtuRe FIRSt. without the buy in of bEiNG A cLone for a
SpecifIC cLoUD structuRe (aWS CompATIbiliTy ovER aNything eLse, for INsTaNce)
or thE bAcking Of TraDitIonal DAtacEnter/sErver venDors (Ibm who eventually
STarted into BluEmiX; mIcROsofT whOse "on premisEs AzURe" is Now fIRiNg oN
Most cYlindErS BuT Was announced as a plan EaRly in OPenStAck's history),
OpEnStack didN'T SEem to havE an oBViOUs niche in the inFrastRucture worLD.
The closEst to A niche it Might have HAD in its eaRly LifE waS thE PRoMise of
applicaTIOn poRtAbility BetWeen cloUds And ThaT neVeR quite seeMed to be
dElIvErEd.

i caN tell IT frustraTeS inFrAstRuctuRE folks To heaR thaT cOnTAinErs have
BEeN EAtinG OPeNStaCk's LuNch, buT thaT Is tHe very rEal case frOm tHE
devElOpEr perspEctive. As a deveLoPer today, I gO fOr cOntainERS and Openstack
is no longer relevant ON my radaR. SuRe I caN run ContainerS on openStAck, BUt
contAiners AbstrAcT awAY More oF THe InfRaStructure aND i haVe lesS aNd leSs
care wHat cloud(s) is underneATh tHe container clUstEr. WhEN i aSkeD opENStAcK
PeoPLE what OpenStack mIght deliveR tO Me That vision OF apPlIcation
PortabiLity wAS tantalIzing but nEver seemeD qUite FINisHed; containEr
technoLogies havE ActuaLLy DelivEreD that.

~~~
yEuKhoN
> if I cAn builD An aPp thaT runs "uNmOdifieD" on anY OPenStack-Based
> infrastructure, that Has a poSsibiLitY to save me PotENtiAl time and MoneY
> from havinG to PorT apps To/fROm/betWeen awS, azuRE, GoogLe ClOUd, et al
> (assUMiNg

in the OpenStack efforts:  as a deve loper  Op enS ta ck d oesn 't directly in t eres t
me because I don't c are a bo u t in f ra struc ture. W h er e Ope nS ta ckha d  a 
poss ibi lity to  win was t o p ro vide options fo r infrastr uct ure agnostic ism : if I 
c anb uildanapp t hat ru n s "unm odified"on any Op e nStack- b a se d in frastructure,
tha t  h a s a possibilit y to s av e  m e pot ent ial time a nd  mone y  from h a vi n g top ort
apps to/f rom/between AWS , Azur e,  Go o gle Cl oud,et al(assuming o f co urse that 
it en o ugh clo u ds actu ally a dop t). 

Fr o mth atpe r spe c ti ve, con tainer s ol ut ions_are _ d e live rin g abette r developer
p rop osit i onthanOpenS tack  h as ye t mana ged.Th ere are ways no w to  build
co nta in ercl uster s  thatyou  ca n shipin para l lel  t o A WS  and Azure with ve ry l it tle code  diffe r en ce . 

In tha tear lier d iscus sion Iwas skep ticalo fOp enStack  p recise ly  be cau se of itsfocuson infra struc t ure first. Wit h out the buy i n  o f be i ng a  cl one for a
s peci f ic c loud st ruc t ure ( AWS c om p at i bility over anythin gelse,for i nstance)
or t he backing o f  traditi onal da t acenter/server  vend ors (IBM w h o eventu allystartedinto Blue M i x; Micro sof t w hos e " o n  p remises Azure " is n ow  firing  on 
most c yli nde rsbut  w as announ ced as a  p la nea rly  in O p enStack' shis to ry) ,
Ope n Stackdidn' t se em  t o  ha ve an o b vi o u s ni ch ein t hein frast ruct u reworld.The close stt o ani ch e it mi ght have hadin  its early  l ife  was t h e  promise  of
application portabi l ity bet wee n clo udsand thatnev er qui tes eemedto bedeliv er ed. I can t el l i tfrustrates i nfr astru ct urefolks t o hear that contai n ers  have
been ea tin g Op e n St ack ' sl unc h, but t hat is the very  real case  f r om  the
devel o per  p erspect ive. As  a de v elopertoday, Igo for co nt aine r s  an d OpenStac k
is nolonger re l evant on  my r ada r. Sur eI c an ru n cont a ine rs on  OpenS ta ck, bu t
con ta iners ab stract away more of the  infra struc tur e and I h ave les s and les s
ca re what cl oud (s)  is u nde r neath  the co nta i ner c lust e r. When I as ked O pe nStack
peop l e wha t Ope nSt a ck mig ht d eliver to me that vision of appl icat i o n
p ort a bili ty  was tantalizi ngbu t never se em ed quite fi nished;co n taine r
tech nologi es have a ct u ally d eliv ere d that.
~~~ 
y e ukhon
>  i fI  can b uild  a n appthat r u ns " u n modified" on any  Open S t ack-b a sed 
> in fr astruct u re,that has a  possibilit y to s aveme po tential  t ime an d m on ey
> fromh aving toportapps to /f rom/ bet ween A WS,A z ure,Goog le  Cl oud, et a l >( as su m ing 

in the_OpenStack efforts:_as a developer OpenStack_doesn't directly_interest
me_because I_don't_care about infrastructure._Where OpenStack had_a
possibility to win was_to provide options_for_infrastructure agnosticism: if I
can build an app that runs "unmodified" on any OpenStack-based infrastructure,
that_has_a possibility_to_save_me potential time and money_from having to port
apps to/from/between_AWS, Azure,_Google Cloud, et al (assuming of course that
it_enough_clouds actually adopt).

From_that perspective, container solutions _are_ delivering a better developer
proposition_than OpenStack has yet managed. There_are ways now_to_build
container_clusters that you can_ship in parallel to AWS and_Azure with very
little code difference.

In that_earlier discussion I was skeptical of OpenStack_precisely because of
its focus on infrastructure_first. Without the buy in_of being_a clone for a
specific cloud_structure (AWS compatibility_over anything_else, for instance)
or_the backing of traditional datacenter/server vendors_(IBM who eventually
started_into BlueMix; Microsoft whose "on premises_Azure"_is now firing_on
most_cylinders_but was_announced as a_plan_early in_OpenStack's_history),
OpenStack didn't seem to have an_obvious_niche in the infrastructure world.
The closest to_a niche it might_have_had in its early_life was the promise of
application_portability between clouds and that never_quite seemed_to be
delivered.

I_can tell it frustrates infrastructure folks to hear that containers have
been_eating OpenStack's lunch, but that is_the very real case_from the
developer_perspective._As a developer_today,_I go_for containers and OpenStack
is no longer relevant_on my_radar. Sure I can run containers_on OpenStack, but
containers abstract_away_more of the infrastructure and I_have less and less
care what cloud(s)_is underneath the container cluster._When_I_asked OpenStack
people what OpenStack might_deliver to me that vision of_application
portability was tantalizing_but never seemed quite finished; container
technologies have_actually_delivered that.

~~~
yeukhon
> if I can build_an_app that runs "unmodified" on any_OpenStack-based
>_infrastructure,_that has a possibility to_save me potential time and money
>_from having to port apps to/from/between AWS, Azure, Google_Cloud, et al
>_(assuming