Slashdot Mirror
Ubuntu's Mark Shuttleworth Pulls No Punches on Red Hat and VMware in OpenStack Cloud (zdnet.com)
At OpenStack Summit in Vancouver, Canada this week, Canonical CEO and Ubuntu Linux founder Mark Shuttleworth came out firing at two of his major enterprise OpenStack competitors: Red Hat and VMware. He claimed that Canonical OpenStack is a better deal than either Red Hat or VMware's OpenStack offerings. From a report: Shuttleworth opened quietly enough, saying, "Mission is to remove all the friction from deploying OpenStack. We can deliver OpenStack deployments with two people in less two weeks anywhere in the world." So far, so typical for a keynote speech. But, then Shuttleworth started to heat things up: "Amazon increased efficiency, so now everyone is driving down cost of infrastructure. Everyone engages with Ubuntu, not Red Hat or VMware. Google, IBM, Microsoft are investing and innovating to drive down the cost of infrastructure. Every single one of those companies works with Canonical to deliver public services."
Then, Shuttleworth got down to brass tacks: "Not one of them engages with VMware to offer those public services. They can't afford to. Clearly, they have the cash, but they have to compete on efficiencies, and so does your private cloud." So, Canonical is rolling rolling out a migration service to help users shift from VMware to a "fully managed" version of Canonical's Ubuntu OpenStack distribution. Customers want this, Shuttleworth said, because, "When we take out VMware we are regularly told that our fully managed OpenStack solution costs half of the equivalent VMware service."
Then, Shuttleworth got down to brass tacks: "Not one of them engages with VMware to offer those public services. They can't afford to. Clearly, they have the cash, but they have to compete on efficiencies, and so does your private cloud." So, Canonical is rolling rolling out a migration service to help users shift from VMware to a "fully managed" version of Canonical's Ubuntu OpenStack distribution. Customers want this, Shuttleworth said, because, "When we take out VMware we are regularly told that our fully managed OpenStack solution costs half of the equivalent VMware service."
Whether any of those claims are valid or not ("Lies, damn lies, and benchmarks") that had to leave a mark.
Finding God in a Dog
If Canonical really solved the OpenStack installation death trap, they could be on to a lucrative business.
What's this nerd shit doing on a political web site like this?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
RedHat became the Microsoft of Linux very soon after that crappy IPO and re-running the share auction that f*cked a lot of us. My Etrade screenshots haunt me.
Ubuntu #1 sever. Linux Mint #1 desktop. There are no close seconds IMNSHO
Seriously both RHEV and VMware ESXi+vSphere can be installed by most techies in a day if they know how they want their environment configured, doesn't matter if you do it on one machine or 500 both let you bootp the machines from bare metal to fully functional in an hour once one server is setup. Both are well documented and pretty idiot friendly.
OpenStack on the other hand is a monstrous mess of poorly written crap. I've installed all 3, multiple times for giggles cause I like creating a 'perfect' setup for my hardware. I can literally go from nothing to fully functional vSphere or RHEV setup in a day. I wouldn't even want to think about considering installing OpenStack without the ansible scripts I spent weeks tweaking to make the OpenShift ansible actually work.
Sorry Shuttleworth, unless you've conjured a miracle no one but large providers are going to fuck with OpenStack, its WAY too much effort for something that isn't really that great. I personally prefer VMware, but its damn expensive. oVirt (RHEV upstream) beats the pants off OpenStack, provides most of the functionality of VMware with only slightly more effort than the 'next next next' VMware installers.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Yea? Ok, well fuck Mark Shuttleworth then
Looks like it only supports Linux containers
Well, you can use KVM if you want, but it's usually not a good idea. Containers are drastically more efficient than paravirtualization like Xen, and that in turn is drastically more efficient than dumb old virtualization. Yes, full-blown virtualization offers better separation of virtual machines, but for example the recent crop of Intel bugs allow breaking out of a VM just "fine".
Too bad Linux containers suck ass, security-wise. Unless something has improved recently?
I'm comparing them to Solaris zones and the even older FreeBSD jails. I don't think there's every been a break-out vulnerability with zones, and with jails there was a bug in devfs(5) daemon and not the actual jail code itself.
There seem to be guest-breakout exploits for LXC, Xen, and KVM/QEMU on a somewhat regular basis (that have nothing to do with CPU bugs).
oVirt needs native CEPH not with cinder or iscsi wrappers
the libvirt part does it.
I tried Mirantis Fuel about 2 years ago and the master / PXE server kernel was so old that it not see an lower end intel-E3 server board on board nic's. When it was still on an cents 6 based kernel. I think the last and newest at the time 6.X did work with nics.
Either go Slackware, or give up on linux and go with something more true to the Unix philosophy like one of the BSDs
How's life in the hypocrite lane?
> I tried Mirantis Fuel about 2 years ago .... it was still on an cents 6 based kernel.
Yeah, there have been two major revisions since then. (Ain't progress great? :( )
Mirantis OpenStack 7 (released in Jan 2015) is using CentOS 6.6.
Mirantis OpenStack 8 (released in Mar 2015) is using CentOS 7.1
Mirantis OpenStack 9 (released in July 2016) is using CentOS 7.2.
(And MOS 9 is two major versions behind latest. :/ )
I feel like he's conflating Ubuntu as the dominant guest with being able to make gains as host. I don't think Google runs their data centers using Canonical tech, nor is it likely IBM or Microsoft do, either.
VM Ware is the SAP/Oracle of the move towards virtualization. That Ubuntu is cheaper is no big surprise.
However, Ubuntu by no means is cheapest . Alpine and Docker seem to be that right now. We're quickly moving into that territory where OS and Platform are a basic commodity, sold by utilities like water and electricity. ... Which is why, curiously enough, MS is making a lot of not most of its cloud revenue with Linux on Azure.
Canonical is well positioned for this market transition because they aren't as much entrenched in traditional IT services. Wether they can leverage this advantage over RH and VMWare is another issue.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
What are you on about? Clearly SUSE/openSUSE have them both beat! *g*
Agreed about RH though. I wish more people would realize what all this PulseAudio, Systemd, firewalld and the other kinds of various shit we get shoved at us from RH is really about. It's not about them being helpful, solving any problems for the rest of us, or that it's better in any quantitative form. It's all about making RH different, so they can invalidate the knowledge out there about UNIX in general and Linux specifically, so they can sell "support" and training courses and certifications, which is where their money is.
RH is a scam, and it's a detriment to us all.
I wish more people would realize what all this PulseAudio, Systemd, firewalld and the other kinds of various shit we get shoved at us from RH is really about.
Let's not forget RPM.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
And let's not forget that you haven't wallowed in crap until you've wallowed in rpmbuild.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Debian Server, Debian + XFCE desktop.
Reliably
Punishing
Me
By
Ultimately
Inducing
Living
Death
Sheepdog FTW!
Forget those old-school SANs and hard to manage block replication attempts.
Whats is this bad juju you are smoking and where can I get some?
We do not allow any of canonical's shit anywhere. Mostly because its half baked and is nothing but problems. And there is the part where they keep pushing non-standard solutions that don't work with anything else (unity, mir, snap, etc).
And the ones with the CentOS 7.X for the servers still left the PXE server with an older 6.X kernel.
Only thing on your radar:
8===D
It is now official. Netcraft has confirmed: *BSD is dying One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test. You don't need to be the Amazing Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying. Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers. OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts. Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house. All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
so you don't like firewalld just b/c it comes from redhat (sometimes the only sponsor of some small FOSS projects)? nevermind that nftables support is in the latest alpha release while other firewall helper software vendors sit on their hands? any big enough company will do some things people don't like but i see many examples where redhat is a good member of the community and i don't follow red hat or use rhel. I just notice their help with things from time to time during my day to day operations.
How's life in the hypocrite lane?