Mailing List Archive

Based on conversations with a number of folks, I drafted a proposed “Policy Statement” and reviewed it with Jonathan. This is not specific to any particular vendor, but simply reaffirming the OpenStack foundation’s historical and current relationship with OS vendors.

https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/OpenStackBoard-CommercialPolicyStatement

Patches welcome.

--

Joshua McKenty
Chief Technology Officer
Piston Cloud Computing, Inc.
+1 (650) 242-5683
+1 (650) 283-6846
http://www.pistoncloud.com

"Oh, Westley, we'll never survive!"
"Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has."

On May 14, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Gil Yehuda <gyehuda@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:

> Suggestion: watch http://press.redhat.com/ Let’s see what Red Hat themselves has to say about their plans to support or not support their products. Why? Because the WSJ might have it right, might have it wrong, or might have it mostly right but wrong in some details. And before people react to a position on the part of a company, we should verify that position.
>
> Then by all means, if they are not playing fair (either from the perspective of the court of law, or the court of public opinion), then the OpenStack community will have to react. And in the case, react strongly.
>
> I’m simply suggesting that we consider the reaction based on what RedHat actually says, not what WSJ says about them. I haven’t seen them say anything formal yet – when they do (or if they did) please share.
>
> Gil Yehuda
> Sr. Director of Open Source, Standards
> gyehuda@yahoo-inc.com (408) 336-4857
>
> From: Dave Nielsen [mailto:dnielsen@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 11:20 AM
> To: Joshua McKenty
> Cc: <foundation@lists.openstack.org>; Stefano Maffulli
> Subject: Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Today's WSJ article <-- Alternatives to RHEL?
>
> I'm no lawyer, but I think it would be hard to prove RHEL has a monopoly. Still, Red Hat has turned a reliance on RHEL by OpenStack customers into a clear liability for the rest of the OpenStack community. Rather taking Red Hat to court, it seems it would healthier to get serious about supporting a competitive alternative, or helping to create one.
>
> [.this my opinion, not that of anyone I may consult for from time to time]
>
> Dave
>
> Dave Nielsen
> Principal Consultant: Platform D, Inc.
> Part-time Consultant to HP Helion
> Co-founder: CloudCamp, BigDataCamp
> Co-chair: Cloud SIG; SFBay OpenStack, SVDevOps, SVBigData
> twitter davenielsen; linkedin dnielsen; fb: dcnielsen
> skype davenielsen; gtalk dnielsen; mobile: 415-531-6674
>
>
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Joshua McKenty <joshua@pistoncloud.com> wrote:
> Yes, that’s the one. I’ve printed a PDF just to help out.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Joshua McKenty
> Chief Technology Officer
> Piston Cloud Computing, Inc.
> +1 (650) 242-5683
> +1 (650) 283-6846
> http://www.pistoncloud.com
>
> "Oh, Westley, we'll never survive!"
> "Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has."
>
> On May 14, 2014, at 11:26 AM, Stefano Maffulli <stefano@openstack.org> wrote:
>
>
> is it this one? Title: Red Hat Plays Hardball on OpenStack Software
>
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCsQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303851804579560290024021158.html&ei=aIpzU_vzFevJsQT_kIGoBw&usg=AFQjCNHe46xKvlhxjlEttnUlRWwzhEXyLA&sig2=sMzbNDF7bRan-69AJ0a5fQ&bvm=bv.66699033,d.cWc&cad=rja
>
> Trick: if you google the title of the article, WSJ will give you the
> full article but if you follow the url straight from a link, WSJ
> requires login
>
> On 05/14/2014 09:38 AM, Joshua McKenty wrote:
>
> Sorry
> - http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303851804579560290024021158
>
> --
>
> Joshua McKenty
> Chief Technology Officer
> Piston Cloud Computing, Inc.
> +1 (650) 242-5683
> +1 (650) 283-6846
> http://www.pistoncloud.com
>
> "Oh, Westley, we'll never survive!"
> "Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has."
>
> On May 14, 2014, at 6:34 AM, Dave Neary <dneary@redhat.com
> <mailto:dneary@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Josh,
>
> Do you have a link?
>
> Thanks,
> Dave.
>
> On 05/14/2014 09:07 AM, Joshua McKenty wrote:
>
> Board members et al,
>
> As usual, I am not a lawyer. However, given the overtones of
> antitrust concern in this article, if other board members and/or
> foundation staff feel that we should discuss this, I would ask that
> we schedule a quick board-coffee-meeting. We need to avoid any
> walking quorums, and we also need to instruct Jonathan and foundation
> staff with a clear response. This is not a topic where I feel it
> would be appropriate for Alan to represent the board.
>
> Joshua
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation@lists.openstack.org <mailto:Foundation@lists.openstack.org>
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>
>
> --
> Dave Neary - Community Action and Impact
> Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com
> Ph: +33 9 50 71 55 62 / Cell: +33 6 77 01 92 13
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>
>
> --
> Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>
>

Dave
How do you see them creating a reliance on RHEL (not doubting just wanting to make sure I see your view).

RH (in OpenStack) is selling the OS for infrastructure (including KVM as a virt). While making sure other OS implementations can functionally run is a given, asking them to provide support for those OS's is a bit much.


The sore spot here is the RHEL guest OS on top of other OpenStack (non RHEL OS) platforms. RHEL not being certified on other virt platforms isn't that irregular. They support(ed) Xen, VMWare and (I think) hyper-v. Their support policy on the web as recently as last year said they would give best effort but had no guarantee (SLA).

I've been deep in this for the last 2 years and while we all would "appreciate" RedHat changing it's policy this was always a commercial decision. Frankly speaking if any of the other distro's wanted to invest deeply in the kernel (KVM) and core talent similar to RH investment levels this would be easier to discuss. RHEL is sold as enterprise class ...blah blah blah ... But that really means they do testing, certification and can assure customers that there is a plan and model in place should the need arise.


Example:
Customer x has a prob within their RHEL implementation, they call RH for support, RH determines the issue may be in the host infrastructure, if its a Debian Distro who does RH call to work with? Who makes sure the patch can be generated to be sure RH doesn't violate it's support agreements, do the other OS vendors have that deep experience and community involvement to do that? Obviously the answers vary and therefore a uniform support model isn't practical.

Customers can and should vote with their feet - if your host infrastructure is ready to play then compete, otherwise you should start a commercial discussion.

Kyle








Sent from my iPhone

> On May 14, 2014, at 2:20 PM, Dave Nielsen <dnielsen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm no lawyer, but I think it would be hard to prove RHEL has a monopoly. Still, Red Hat has turned a reliance on RHEL by OpenStack customers into a clear liability for the rest of the OpenStack community. Rather taking Red Hat to court, it seems it would healthier to get serious about supporting a competitive alternative, or helping to create one.
>
> [.this my opinion, not that of anyone I may consult for from time to time]
>
> Dave
>
> Dave Nielsen
> Principal Consultant: Platform D, Inc.
> Part-time Consultant to HP Helion
> Co-founder: CloudCamp, BigDataCamp
> Co-chair: Cloud SIG; SFBay OpenStack, SVDevOps, SVBigData
> twitter davenielsen; linkedin dnielsen; fb: dcnielsen
> skype davenielsen; gtalk dnielsen; mobile: 415-531-6674
>
>
>> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Joshua McKenty <joshua@pistoncloud.com> wrote:
>> Yes, that’s the one. I’ve printed a PDF just to help out.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Joshua McKenty
>> Chief Technology Officer
>> Piston Cloud Computing, Inc.
>> +1 (650) 242-5683
>> +1 (650) 283-6846
>> http://www.pistoncloud.com
>>
>> "Oh, Westley, we'll never survive!"
>> "Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has."
>>
>>> On May 14, 2014, at 11:26 AM, Stefano Maffulli <stefano@openstack.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> is it this one? Title: Red Hat Plays Hardball on OpenStack Software
>>>
>>> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCsQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303851804579560290024021158.html&ei=aIpzU_vzFevJsQT_kIGoBw&usg=AFQjCNHe46xKvlhxjlEttnUlRWwzhEXyLA&sig2=sMzbNDF7bRan-69AJ0a5fQ&bvm=bv.66699033,d.cWc&cad=rja
>>>
>>> Trick: if you google the title of the article, WSJ will give you the
>>> full article but if you follow the url straight from a link, WSJ
>>> requires login
>>>
>>>> On 05/14/2014 09:38 AM, Joshua McKenty wrote:
>>>> Sorry
>>>> - http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303851804579560290024021158
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Joshua McKenty
>>>> Chief Technology Officer
>>>> Piston Cloud Computing, Inc.
>>>> +1 (650) 242-5683
>>>> +1 (650) 283-6846
>>>> http://www.pistoncloud.com
>>>>
>>>> "Oh, Westley, we'll never survive!"
>>>> "Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has."
>>>>
>>>> On May 14, 2014, at 6:34 AM, Dave Neary <dneary@redhat.com
>>>> <mailto:dneary@redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Josh,
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have a link?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Dave.
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 05/14/2014 09:07 AM, Joshua McKenty wrote:
>>>>>> Board members et al,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As usual, I am not a lawyer. However, given the overtones of
>>>>>> antitrust concern in this article, if other board members and/or
>>>>>> foundation staff feel that we should discuss this, I would ask that
>>>>>> we schedule a quick board-coffee-meeting. We need to avoid any
>>>>>> walking quorums, and we also need to instruct Jonathan and foundation
>>>>>> staff with a clear response. This is not a topic where I feel it
>>>>>> would be appropriate for Alan to represent the board.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joshua
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Foundation mailing list
>>>>>> Foundation@lists.openstack.org <mailto:Foundation@lists.openstack.org>
>>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dave Neary - Community Action and Impact
>>>>> Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com
>>>>> Ph: +33 9 50 71 55 62 / Cell: +33 6 77 01 92 13
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Foundation mailing list
>>>> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Foundation mailing list
>>> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foundation mailing list
>> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

Kind of raises the question:

"If OpenStack defines a standard for what is and is not an OpenStack ( tm )
distribution, while it also entail cross distribution support
requirements? or any specific supported configuration requirements?"


On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Kyle MacDonald <kyle.macdonald@gmail.com>wrote:

> Dave
> How do you see them creating a reliance on RHEL (not doubting just wanting
> to make sure I see your view).
>
> RH (in OpenStack) is selling the OS for infrastructure (including KVM as a
> virt). While making sure other OS implementations can functionally run is a
> given, asking them to provide support for those OS's is a bit much.
>
>
> The sore spot here is the RHEL guest OS on top of other OpenStack (non
> RHEL OS) platforms. RHEL not being certified on other virt platforms isn't
> that irregular. They support(ed) Xen, VMWare and (I think) hyper-v. Their
> support policy on the web as recently as last year said they would give
> best effort but had no guarantee (SLA).
>
> I've been deep in this for the last 2 years and while we all would
> "appreciate" RedHat changing it's policy this was always a commercial
> decision. Frankly speaking if any of the other distro's wanted to invest
> deeply in the kernel (KVM) and core talent similar to RH investment levels
> this would be easier to discuss. RHEL is sold as enterprise class ...blah
> blah blah ... But that really means they do testing, certification and can
> assure customers that there is a plan and model in place should the need
> arise.
>
>
> Example:
> Customer x has a prob within their RHEL implementation, they call RH for
> support, RH determines the issue may be in the host infrastructure, if its
> a Debian Distro who does RH call to work with? Who makes sure the patch can
> be generated to be sure RH doesn't violate it's support agreements, do the
> other OS vendors have that deep experience and community involvement to do
> that? Obviously the answers vary and therefore a uniform support model
> isn't practical.
>
> Customers can and should vote with their feet - if your host
> infrastructure is ready to play then compete, otherwise you should start a
> commercial discussion.
>
> Kyle
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 14, 2014, at 2:20 PM, Dave Nielsen <dnielsen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm no lawyer, but I think it would be hard to prove RHEL has a monopoly.
> Still, Red Hat has turned a reliance on RHEL by OpenStack customers into a
> clear liability for the rest of the OpenStack community. Rather taking Red
> Hat to court, it seems it would healthier to get serious about supporting a
> competitive alternative, or helping to create one.
>
> [.this my opinion, not that of anyone I may consult for from time to time]
>
> Dave
>
> Dave Nielsen
> Principal Consultant: Platform D, Inc <http://platformd.com>.
> Part-time Consultant to HP Helion
> Co-founder: CloudCamp <http://cloudcamp.org>, BigDataCamp<http://www.bigdatacamp.org>
> Co-chair: Cloud SIG <http://cloudsig.org>; SFBay OpenStack<http://www.meetup.com/openstack>
> , SVDevOps <http://svdevops.com>, SVBigData <http://svbigdata.com>
> twitter davenielsen <http://twitter.com/davenielsen>; linkedin dnielsen<http://linkedin.com/in/dnielsen>; fb:
> dcnielsen <http://fb.com/dcnielsen>
> skype davenielsen; gtalk dnielsen; mobile: 415-531-6674
> <http://www.apbspeakers.com/speaker/dave-nielsen>
>
>
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Joshua McKenty <joshua@pistoncloud.com>wrote:
>
>> Yes, that’s the one. I’ve printed a PDF just to help out.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Joshua McKenty
>> Chief Technology Officer
>> Piston Cloud Computing, Inc.
>> +1 (650) 242-5683
>> +1 (650) 283-6846
>> http://www.pistoncloud.com
>>
>> "Oh, Westley, we'll never survive!"
>> "Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has."
>>
>> On May 14, 2014, at 11:26 AM, Stefano Maffulli <stefano@openstack.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> is it this one? Title: Red Hat Plays Hardball on OpenStack Software
>>
>>
>> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCsQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303851804579560290024021158.html&ei=aIpzU_vzFevJsQT_kIGoBw&usg=AFQjCNHe46xKvlhxjlEttnUlRWwzhEXyLA&sig2=sMzbNDF7bRan-69AJ0a5fQ&bvm=bv.66699033,d.cWc&cad=rja
>>
>> Trick: if you google the title of the article, WSJ will give you the
>> full article but if you follow the url straight from a link, WSJ
>> requires login
>>
>> On 05/14/2014 09:38 AM, Joshua McKenty wrote:
>>
>> Sorry
>> -
>> http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303851804579560290024021158
>>
>> --
>>
>> Joshua McKenty
>> Chief Technology Officer
>> Piston Cloud Computing, Inc.
>> +1 (650) 242-5683
>> +1 (650) 283-6846
>> http://www.pistoncloud.com
>>
>> "Oh, Westley, we'll never survive!"
>> "Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has."
>>
>> On May 14, 2014, at 6:34 AM, Dave Neary <dneary@redhat.com
>> <mailto:dneary@redhat.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Josh,
>>
>> Do you have a link?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dave.
>>
>> On 05/14/2014 09:07 AM, Joshua McKenty wrote:
>>
>> Board members et al,
>>
>> As usual, I am not a lawyer. However, given the overtones of
>> antitrust concern in this article, if other board members and/or
>> foundation staff feel that we should discuss this, I would ask that
>> we schedule a quick board-coffee-meeting. We need to avoid any
>> walking quorums, and we also need to instruct Jonathan and foundation
>> staff with a clear response. This is not a topic where I feel it
>> would be appropriate for Alan to represent the board.
>>
>> Joshua
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foundation mailing list
>> Foundation@lists.openstack.org <mailto:Foundation@lists.openstack.org>
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dave Neary - Community Action and Impact
>> Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com
>> Ph: +33 9 50 71 55 62 / Cell: +33 6 77 01 92 13
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foundation mailing list
>> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foundation mailing list
>> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foundation mailing list
>> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>
>

I felt obliged to add a comment on the article re: the organization
and sponsorhip of the Summit. The article sure made it sound like a
RedHat event to anyone unfamiliar with OpenStack and the Foundation.

mike

_______________________________________________
Foundation mailing list
Foundation@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation

I don't want to speak on behalf of RH, but, to my knowledge, the decision
about supporting or not supporting RHEL on various virtualization platforms
is a technology decision, not a go-to-market decision. Neither does Red Hat
explicitly refuse to do so, they just don't do it right now.

In offering guest support for RHEL, RH has to do backwards compatibility
testing for all releases of RHEL dating 13 years back on that particular
virtualization platform. This is technologically challenging thus RH would
only invest in it if there is a clear revenue potential for RHEL on that
platform. RHEL on Amazon and vCenter - potential is clear. RHEL on Mirantis
OpenStack or Piston OpenStack - maybe not so mcuh... this may look ugly on
the outside, but there is actually merit to this.

-Boris


On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:09 PM, matt <matt@nycresistor.com> wrote:

> Kind of raises the question:
>
> "If OpenStack defines a standard for what is and is not an OpenStack ( tm
> ) distribution, while it also entail cross distribution support
> requirements? or any specific supported configuration requirements?"
>
>
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Kyle MacDonald <kyle.macdonald@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Dave
>> How do you see them creating a reliance on RHEL (not doubting just
>> wanting to make sure I see your view).
>>
>> RH (in OpenStack) is selling the OS for infrastructure (including KVM as
>> a virt). While making sure other OS implementations can functionally run is
>> a given, asking them to provide support for those OS's is a bit much.
>>
>>
>> The sore spot here is the RHEL guest OS on top of other OpenStack (non
>> RHEL OS) platforms. RHEL not being certified on other virt platforms isn't
>> that irregular. They support(ed) Xen, VMWare and (I think) hyper-v. Their
>> support policy on the web as recently as last year said they would give
>> best effort but had no guarantee (SLA).
>>
>> I've been deep in this for the last 2 years and while we all would
>> "appreciate" RedHat changing it's policy this was always a commercial
>> decision. Frankly speaking if any of the other distro's wanted to invest
>> deeply in the kernel (KVM) and core talent similar to RH investment levels
>> this would be easier to discuss. RHEL is sold as enterprise class ...blah
>> blah blah ... But that really means they do testing, certification and can
>> assure customers that there is a plan and model in place should the need
>> arise.
>>
>>
>> Example:
>> Customer x has a prob within their RHEL implementation, they call RH for
>> support, RH determines the issue may be in the host infrastructure, if its
>> a Debian Distro who does RH call to work with? Who makes sure the patch can
>> be generated to be sure RH doesn't violate it's support agreements, do the
>> other OS vendors have that deep experience and community involvement to do
>> that? Obviously the answers vary and therefore a uniform support model
>> isn't practical.
>>
>> Customers can and should vote with their feet - if your host
>> infrastructure is ready to play then compete, otherwise you should start a
>> commercial discussion.
>>
>> Kyle
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On May 14, 2014, at 2:20 PM, Dave Nielsen <dnielsen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm no lawyer, but I think it would be hard to prove RHEL has a monopoly.
>> Still, Red Hat has turned a reliance on RHEL by OpenStack customers into a
>> clear liability for the rest of the OpenStack community. Rather taking Red
>> Hat to court, it seems it would healthier to get serious about supporting a
>> competitive alternative, or helping to create one.
>>
>> [.this my opinion, not that of anyone I may consult for from time to time]
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> Dave Nielsen
>> Principal Consultant: Platform D, Inc <http://platformd.com>.
>> Part-time Consultant to HP Helion
>> Co-founder: CloudCamp <http://cloudcamp.org>, BigDataCamp<http://www.bigdatacamp.org>
>> Co-chair: Cloud SIG <http://cloudsig.org>; SFBay OpenStack<http://www.meetup.com/openstack>
>> , SVDevOps <http://svdevops.com>, SVBigData <http://svbigdata.com>
>> twitter davenielsen <http://twitter.com/davenielsen>; linkedin dnielsen<http://linkedin.com/in/dnielsen>; fb:
>> dcnielsen <http://fb.com/dcnielsen>
>> skype davenielsen; gtalk dnielsen; mobile: 415-531-6674
>> <http://www.apbspeakers.com/speaker/dave-nielsen>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Joshua McKenty <joshua@pistoncloud.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, that’s the one. I’ve printed a PDF just to help out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Joshua McKenty
>>> Chief Technology Officer
>>> Piston Cloud Computing, Inc.
>>> +1 (650) 242-5683
>>> +1 (650) 283-6846
>>> http://www.pistoncloud.com
>>>
>>> "Oh, Westley, we'll never survive!"
>>> "Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has."
>>>
>>> On May 14, 2014, at 11:26 AM, Stefano Maffulli <stefano@openstack.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> is it this one? Title: Red Hat Plays Hardball on OpenStack Software
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCsQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303851804579560290024021158.html&ei=aIpzU_vzFevJsQT_kIGoBw&usg=AFQjCNHe46xKvlhxjlEttnUlRWwzhEXyLA&sig2=sMzbNDF7bRan-69AJ0a5fQ&bvm=bv.66699033,d.cWc&cad=rja
>>>
>>> Trick: if you google the title of the article, WSJ will give you the
>>> full article but if you follow the url straight from a link, WSJ
>>> requires login
>>>
>>> On 05/14/2014 09:38 AM, Joshua McKenty wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry
>>> -
>>> http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303851804579560290024021158
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Joshua McKenty
>>> Chief Technology Officer
>>> Piston Cloud Computing, Inc.
>>> +1 (650) 242-5683
>>> +1 (650) 283-6846
>>> http://www.pistoncloud.com
>>>
>>> "Oh, Westley, we'll never survive!"
>>> "Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has."
>>>
>>> On May 14, 2014, at 6:34 AM, Dave Neary <dneary@redhat.com
>>> <mailto:dneary@redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Josh,
>>>
>>> Do you have a link?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Dave.
>>>
>>> On 05/14/2014 09:07 AM, Joshua McKenty wrote:
>>>
>>> Board members et al,
>>>
>>> As usual, I am not a lawyer. However, given the overtones of
>>> antitrust concern in this article, if other board members and/or
>>> foundation staff feel that we should discuss this, I would ask that
>>> we schedule a quick board-coffee-meeting. We need to avoid any
>>> walking quorums, and we also need to instruct Jonathan and foundation
>>> staff with a clear response. This is not a topic where I feel it
>>> would be appropriate for Alan to represent the board.
>>>
>>> Joshua
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Foundation mailing list
>>> Foundation@lists.openstack.org <mailto:Foundation@lists.openstack.org>
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dave Neary - Community Action and Impact
>>> Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com
>>> Ph: +33 9 50 71 55 62 / Cell: +33 6 77 01 92 13
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Foundation mailing list
>>> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Foundation mailing list
>>> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Foundation mailing list
>>> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foundation mailing list
>> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foundation mailing list
>> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>
>

I don't want to speak on behalf of RH, but, to my knowledge, the decision
about supporting or not supporting RHEL on various virtualization platforms
is a technology decision, not a go-to-market decision. Neither does Red Hat
explicitly refuse to do so, they just don't do it right now.

In offering guest support for RHEL, RH has to do backwards compatibility
testing for all releases of RHEL dating 13 years back on that particular
virtualization platform. This is technologically challenging thus RH would
only invest in it if there is a clear revenue potential for RHEL on that
platform. RHEL on Amazon and vCenter - potential is clear. RHEL on Mirantis
OpenStack or Piston OpenStack - maybe not so mcuh... this may look ugly on
the outside, but there is actually merit to this.

-Boris


On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Michael Pittaro <mikeyp@lhrc.com> wrote:

> I felt obliged to add a comment on the article re: the organization
> and sponsorhip of the Summit. The article sure made it sound like a
> RedHat event to anyone unfamiliar with OpenStack and the Foundation.
>
> mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>

My point is that if enterprise customers expect RHEL-level VM support, then
non-Red Hat OpenStack vendors are in a tough spot if they can't offer that.

Before I go any further, does anyone know what % of the enterprise market
is "open" to using an OpenStack implementation for its private/hybrid
cloud? Is 80% reasonable? Also, what % of the enterprise market is heavily
dependent on RHEL-level support and unlikely to use an OpenStack distro
that can't offer it? Is 20% of enterprise market reasonable?

If so, then Red Hat's private cloud market opportunity is 80% while the
rest of the OpenStack distros opportunity is only 60% combined.

This could be damaging for OpenStack as a whole b/c it makes non-Red Hat
OpenStack vendors less competitive against OpenStack alternatives, which
they might lose to now .... unless an alternative to RHEL-level support
appears.

Does this make sense? Or am I missing something?

Dave


On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Boris Renski <b@renski.com> wrote:

> I don't want to speak on behalf of RH, but, to my knowledge, the decision
> about supporting or not supporting RHEL on various virtualization platforms
> is a technology decision, not a go-to-market decision. Neither does Red Hat
> explicitly refuse to do so, they just don't do it right now.
>
> In offering guest support for RHEL, RH has to do backwards compatibility
> testing for all releases of RHEL dating 13 years back on that particular
> virtualization platform. This is technologically challenging thus RH would
> only invest in it if there is a clear revenue potential for RHEL on that
> platform. RHEL on Amazon and vCenter - potential is clear. RHEL on Mirantis
> OpenStack or Piston OpenStack - maybe not so mcuh... this may look ugly on
> the outside, but there is actually merit to this.
>
> -Boris
>
>
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Michael Pittaro <mikeyp@lhrc.com> wrote:
>
>> I felt obliged to add a comment on the article re: the organization
>> and sponsorhip of the Summit. The article sure made it sound like a
>> RedHat event to anyone unfamiliar with OpenStack and the Foundation.
>>
>> mike
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foundation mailing list
>> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>>
>
>

While I agree that it is prohibitive to 'support' software across a
combinatoric explosion of virtualization platforms, OpenStack is not a
virtualization platform per se.

Right now there is a lot of speculation, and I'm interested to see what
RedHat's official position actually ends up being.

If the RH position ends up being 'you must run RH OpenStack to have RHEL
guest support, period', then I see this forcing a 'splitting the baby
judgement of Solomon style' decision for the foundation and community.

I'll just keep reminding everyone, you get the OpenStack clouds you deserve.

gl;hf

-Andrew

Hi Gil,

I've read and re-read Red Hat's
post<https://www.redhat.com/about/news/archive/2014/5/on-openstack-and-open-source>
(by
Paul Cormier, President, Products and Technologies) over and over. And I'm
still confused. I think the key sentence is ...

"To be clear, users are free to deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux with any
OpenStack offering, and there is no requirement to use our OpenStack
technologies to get a Red Hat Enterprise Linux subscription."

The first 1/2 of the sentence implies that anyone can run RHEL on any
OpenStack offering *without support, *but we knew that already. The 2nd
part of this sentence, however, isn't clear at all. Does it mean that Red
Hat will offer paid support of RHEL *when running on other OpenStack
distros*? Or does it just mean that Red Hat offers paid support of RHEL in
general, *but not necessarily on other OpenStack distros*? It seems
ambiguous, perhaps on purpose. And there is a big difference between these
two interpretations. The latter is business as usual, while *the former is
what this whole brew ha ha is about. *

This would all be cleared up if anyone could point to one customer that Red
Hat is providing support to on top of a competing OpenStack distro. So far
I hear crickets.

Dave


On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Gil Yehuda <gyehuda@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:

> RH has spoken
> https://www.redhat.com/about/news/archive/2014/5/on-openstack-and-open-source
>
>
>
> If understand this correctly they are saying:
>
> 1. RH will sell RHEL support (operating system) to users of RHEL
> regardless of which virtualization management technology is being used.
>
> 2. RH will only sell RHELOP support (RH’s OpenStack Platform) to
> people who use it to manage RHEL images.
>
>
>
> Meaning: RH’s support of their OS is independent of your use of Open
> Stack, but their support of their Open Stack requires that you also use
> their OS. If anything this makes it easier for competitors to take business
> away from RH, since they are limiting their prospective customers to only
> those who already like RHEL.
>
>
>
> This comes at odds with the key statement in the WSJ article:
>
> In its quest to sell OpenStack, Red Hat has chosen not to provide support
> to its commercial Linux customers if they use rival versions of OpenStack,
> according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
>
>
>
> Whereas that might be factual (i.e. someone leaked documents suggesting
> this position as an option), it’s not what RH says in their press release
> is their actual service offering strategy.
>
> To be clear, users are free to deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux with any
> OpenStack offering, and there is no requirement to use our OpenStack
> technologies to get a Red Hat Enterprise Linux subscription.
>
>
>
> Thus you have four cases.
>
> 1. People who want RHEL and want RHELOP: RH will gladly take their
> money and support both. Customers get what they want. RH earns their
> business. Yey Open Source.
>
> 2. People who want RHEL but a different OpenStack provider: RH will
> support the OS and someone else will support the OpenStack environment.
> Customers get what they want. RH earns some business, a competitor earns
> the other business. No lock-in. Yey Open Source.
>
> 3. People who don’t want RHEL, but do want RHELOP: RH will not take
> their money. So they’ll have to find someone who will. Customers do not get
> what they want, but that’s ‘cuz RH does not want to manage the mixed
> environment – since they believe OpenStack and the OS are intertwined. They
> walk away from customers (their prerogative) and those who believe that
> OpenStack and the OS are independent can score some business. Yey Open
> Source.
>
> 4. People who don’t want RHEL and don’t want RHELOP: Nothing
> changes for them. They don’t care what RH sells.
>
>
>
> As best as I can tell, this is not a threat to the success of OpenStack’s
> stance on supporting a healthy and competitive open environment.
>
>
>
> Can anyone confirm or correct the above?
>
>
>
> *Gil Yehuda*
> Sr. Director of Open Source, Standards
> gyehuda@yahoo-inc.com (408) 336-4857
>
>
>
> *From:* Gil Yehuda [mailto:gyehuda@yahoo-inc.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 14, 2014 11:33 AM
> *To:* Dave Nielsen; Joshua McKenty
>
> *Cc:* <foundation@lists.openstack.org>; Stefano Maffulli
> *Subject:* Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Today's WSJ article <--
> Alternatives to RHEL?
>
>
>
> Suggestion: watch http://press.redhat.com/ Let’s see what Red Hat
> themselves has to say about their plans to support or not support their
> products. Why? Because the WSJ might have it right, might have it wrong, or
> might have it mostly right but wrong in some details. And before people
> react to a position on the part of a company, we should verify that
> position.
>
>
>
> Then by all means, if they are not playing fair (either from the
> perspective of the court of law, or the court of public opinion), then the
> OpenStack community will have to react. And in the case, react strongly.
>
>
>
> I’m simply suggesting that we consider the reaction based on what RedHat
> actually says, not what WSJ says about them. I haven’t seen them say
> anything formal yet – when they do (or if they did) please share.
>
>
>
> *Gil Yehuda*
> Sr. Director of Open Source, Standards
> gyehuda@yahoo-inc.com (408) 336-4857
>
>
>
> *From:* Dave Nielsen [mailto:dnielsen@gmail.com <dnielsen@gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 14, 2014 11:20 AM
> *To:* Joshua McKenty
> *Cc:* <foundation@lists.openstack.org>; Stefano Maffulli
> *Subject:* Re: [OpenStack Foundation] Today's WSJ article <--
> Alternatives to RHEL?
>
>
>
> I'm no lawyer, but I think it would be hard to prove RHEL has a monopoly.
> Still, Red Hat has turned a reliance on RHEL by OpenStack customers into a
> clear liability for the rest of the OpenStack community. Rather taking Red
> Hat to court, it seems it would healthier to get serious about supporting a
> competitive alternative, or helping to create one.
>
> [.this my opinion, not that of anyone I may consult for from time to time]
>
> Dave
>
> Dave Nielsen
>
> Principal Consultant: Platform D, Inc <http://platformd.com>.
>
> Part-time Consultant to HP Helion
>
> Co-founder: CloudCamp <http://cloudcamp.org>, BigDataCamp<http://www.bigdatacamp.org>
>
> Co-chair: Cloud SIG <http://cloudsig.org>; SFBay OpenStack<http://www.meetup.com/openstack>
> , SVDevOps <http://svdevops.com>, SVBigData <http://svbigdata.com>
> twitter davenielsen <http://twitter.com/davenielsen>; linkedin dnielsen<http://linkedin.com/in/dnielsen>; fb:
> dcnielsen <http://fb.com/dcnielsen>
>
> skype davenielsen; gtalk dnielsen; mobile: 415-531-6674
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Joshua McKenty <joshua@pistoncloud.com>
> wrote:
>
> Yes, that’s the one. I’ve printed a PDF just to help out.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Joshua McKenty
>
> Chief Technology Officer
>
> Piston Cloud Computing, Inc.
>
> +1 (650) 242-5683
>
> +1 (650) 283-6846
>
> http://www.pistoncloud.com
>
>
>
> "Oh, Westley, we'll never survive!"
> "Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has."
>
>
>
> On May 14, 2014, at 11:26 AM, Stefano Maffulli <stefano@openstack.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> is it this one? Title: Red Hat Plays Hardball on OpenStack Software
>
>
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCsQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303851804579560290024021158.html&ei=aIpzU_vzFevJsQT_kIGoBw&usg=AFQjCNHe46xKvlhxjlEttnUlRWwzhEXyLA&sig2=sMzbNDF7bRan-69AJ0a5fQ&bvm=bv.66699033,d.cWc&cad=rja
>
> Trick: if you google the title of the article, WSJ will give you the
> full article but if you follow the url straight from a link, WSJ
> requires login
>
> On 05/14/2014 09:38 AM, Joshua McKenty wrote:
>
> Sorry
> -
> http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303851804579560290024021158
>
> --
>
> Joshua McKenty
> Chief Technology Officer
> Piston Cloud Computing, Inc.
> +1 (650) 242-5683
> +1 (650) 283-6846
> http://www.pistoncloud.com
>
> "Oh, Westley, we'll never survive!"
> "Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has."
>
> On May 14, 2014, at 6:34 AM, Dave Neary <dneary@redhat.com
> <mailto:dneary@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Josh,
>
> Do you have a link?
>
> Thanks,
> Dave.
>
> On 05/14/2014 09:07 AM, Joshua McKenty wrote:
>
> Board members et al,
>
> As usual, I am not a lawyer. However, given the overtones of
> antitrust concern in this article, if other board members and/or
> foundation staff feel that we should discuss this, I would ask that
> we schedule a quick board-coffee-meeting. We need to avoid any
> walking quorums, and we also need to instruct Jonathan and foundation
> staff with a clear response. This is not a topic where I feel it
> would be appropriate for Alan to represent the board.
>
> Joshua
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation@lists.openstack.org <mailto:Foundation@lists.openstack.org>
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>
>
> --
> Dave Neary - Community Action and Impact
> Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com
> Ph: +33 9 50 71 55 62 / Cell: +33 6 77 01 92 13
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>
>
> --
> Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>
>
>