OpenStack is more about managing virtual servers compared to being about virtualization. OpenStack needs a hypervisor, there is no function for that in the code. Just clarifying here that OpenStack is a package of components that are built to manage virtualized servers. OpenStack doens't actually do the virtualization. Still need KVM, Hyper-V or (gasp) ESX
meh, yes and no. there could be use cases for SMBs (more medium than small probbly), especially around app dev. if you have devs using AWS and paying for it on expense reports with taxi receipts (I've heard this happening), then a CIO could make a case for building up some internal cloud infrastructure to give users fast access to resources. I don't like the buzzwords, but DevOps could help usher in cloud adoption for regular enterprises.
I had a friend who wanted to build a secure, anonymous email platform (think bit torrent for e-mail) that would be free of NSA snooping. He didn't do it because he's worried that criminals would use it more than good people
One of the companies proposing this idea has created a common trading metric – a way to compare resources from multiple providers in an apples-to-apple fashion to ensure one commodity is equal to another. It's called the Workload Allocation Cube, or WAC from 6Fusion and it takes into account CPU, storage and input/output speeds to create a common metric that is applicable across multiple providers.
Some cloud providers have unique services making apples to apples comparisons difficult, but that doesn't prohibit a unique service from being sold on an exchange market as a futures commodity. The WAC, or some similar metric, could be used only on like products from companies.
Couple of points:
Providers don't necessarily have to be interchangeable - I think that's a misconception with this idea. Consumers will just use resources from whatever providers they buy the commodity from. They could choose to only buy AWS clouds, for exmaple, from this marketplace Federation would be ideal, but it's not a requirement for this to work.
Here are some pros and cons of the broader plan though:
Pros:
Gives consumers a market on which to shop for cloud products in an apples-to-apples comparison
Marketplace can lower prices for consumers
Gives providers a market on which to sell their products, gives them access to buyers
Gives providers a new funding mechanism for building out new capacity
Cons:
Potential for market manipulation
Regulatory hurdles
Cost savings will be eaten up by investors, will not be passed on to users
Moore's law will render futures cloud commodities less valuable
This is a tough situation for OpenStack - the project is still young, so it wants to be liberal in terms of who it lets in and be careful not to alienate big companies that are investing a lot of money it in. At the same time, OpenStack enthusiasts want to make sure the project doesn't fork into a million directions and doesn't allow for the promise of what they beleive OpenStack can be - a federated hybrid cloud ecosystem, which requires interoperability.
Slashdot Mirror
cause it's free
Microsoft couldn't pay me to get a Surface, much less give up my Macbook
OpenStack is more about managing virtual servers compared to being about virtualization. OpenStack needs a hypervisor, there is no function for that in the code. Just clarifying here that OpenStack is a package of components that are built to manage virtualized servers. OpenStack doens't actually do the virtualization. Still need KVM, Hyper-V or (gasp) ESX
meh, yes and no. there could be use cases for SMBs (more medium than small probbly), especially around app dev. if you have devs using AWS and paying for it on expense reports with taxi receipts (I've heard this happening), then a CIO could make a case for building up some internal cloud infrastructure to give users fast access to resources. I don't like the buzzwords, but DevOps could help usher in cloud adoption for regular enterprises.
Red Hat is being very coy in all this, so even the reporter and analyst don't know exactly what's going on.
Example would be if you want to use RHEL OS and Mirantis distro of OpenStack. Red Hat doesn't want that - they want you to use RHEL OpenStack.
I had a friend who wanted to build a secure, anonymous email platform (think bit torrent for e-mail) that would be free of NSA snooping. He didn't do it because he's worried that criminals would use it more than good people
One of the companies proposing this idea has created a common trading metric – a way to compare resources from multiple providers in an apples-to-apple fashion to ensure one commodity is equal to another. It's called the Workload Allocation Cube, or WAC from 6Fusion and it takes into account CPU, storage and input/output speeds to create a common metric that is applicable across multiple providers. Some cloud providers have unique services making apples to apples comparisons difficult, but that doesn't prohibit a unique service from being sold on an exchange market as a futures commodity. The WAC, or some similar metric, could be used only on like products from companies.
Couple of points: Providers don't necessarily have to be interchangeable - I think that's a misconception with this idea. Consumers will just use resources from whatever providers they buy the commodity from. They could choose to only buy AWS clouds, for exmaple, from this marketplace Federation would be ideal, but it's not a requirement for this to work. Here are some pros and cons of the broader plan though: Pros: Gives consumers a market on which to shop for cloud products in an apples-to-apples comparison Marketplace can lower prices for consumers Gives providers a market on which to sell their products, gives them access to buyers Gives providers a new funding mechanism for building out new capacity Cons: Potential for market manipulation Regulatory hurdles Cost savings will be eaten up by investors, will not be passed on to users Moore's law will render futures cloud commodities less valuable
Interop had way fewer booth babes this year too compared to last year
This is a tough situation for OpenStack - the project is still young, so it wants to be liberal in terms of who it lets in and be careful not to alienate big companies that are investing a lot of money it in. At the same time, OpenStack enthusiasts want to make sure the project doesn't fork into a million directions and doesn't allow for the promise of what they beleive OpenStack can be - a federated hybrid cloud ecosystem, which requires interoperability.
and paying $400 a month for gold support package