7 ms·

the article mentions other big players pulling out or cutting jobs/funding related to OpenStack in recent months in addition to this latest move by Intel. Is t

the article mentions other big players pulling out or cutting jobs/funding related to OpenStack in recent months in addition to this latest move by Intel. Is this related to some endemic problem with the technology, big egos within the project, dominance by another outside player or what? Cursory searching doesn't reveal any "big thing". Maybe it's just dying a death by a thousand cuts.

api 10y ago
I don't know about today, but a few years ago I tried to set it up and found it to be an uninstallable massive ball of twine and chewing gum. It was shockingly clunky. I can't imagine running something like that in production. I suppose it'd be good job security for a lot of sysadmins.
- throwasehasdwi 10y ago
  I saw the same. It had great promise but was cobbled together poorly enough that nobody wants their name on it anymore :(
- eropple 10y ago
  It hasn't improved much, at least not of three months ago. Automating the rollout of any particularly is a Herculean task and even doing it by hand is onerous. Devstack works. Sort of. Poorly. Everything else is pay-a-consultant territory.
- AndyNemmity 10y ago
  I just moved into an openstack development job, and I'm struggling. So many technologies and complexities you have to keep in mind, even within a single project. I'm hoping it comes together soon. I have not provided a ton of value yet just sitting here learning, and breaking so many things.
  - justinhensley 10y ago
    It is a lot to ingest. Can you elaborate on the OpenStack development you are doing? OpenStack refers to a number of different projects (Nova, Neutron, Horizon, etc). I would advise getting a high level understanding of how Nova, Neutron, and Cinder/Swift interoperate. Then drill in to Neutron. As with every other cloud platform I've worked with, most of the IaaS complexity lies in Networking, in my opinion. Neutron, and SDN in general, is a fairly complex topic depending on your experience with network architecture and administration.
    - AndyNemmity 10y ago
      I am doing Monasca development within an Openstack cloud running on Kubernetes and built with helm. So for example a development environment I use is a docker-compose environment building Monasca. That environment is a work in progress, so half the time I'm fighting that environment just to make a proper change. Then from there, I don't have Horizon, so I have to use command line apis directly to set everything that I wish to use. The whole thing has just been a challenge, every part I've had to learn in some respect. The actual code I've changed in Monasca, has been the simplest part so far. Validating it's correct, and testing it has been the far harder challenge. Monasca also being a bit of a challenge since it's several different repos of services working together, instead of a large one akin to Nova. I'll get it, but it's been a struggle so far.
  - Bombthecat 10y ago
    Try to get the firm to hyperv. Most firms I hear of switch to it.
- T_Rex 10y ago
  I think it's improved a lot recently. We're using kolla + ansible for deploying, and it seems pretty seamless. https://github.com/openstack/kolla-ansible https://github.com/openstack/kolla-ansible
johngalt 10y ago
Openstack created a lot of possibilities for the way it "could" work or "should" work, but almost no methods where it does work. The problem with Openstack is it had too many moving parts, and no standard/reference implementation. It was destroyed by it's own grandiose goals. The project wanted to say 'yes' to every permutation of software. Making it a disaster from an operational standpoint. Everything promised, but nothing verified.
- yeukhon 10y ago
  I second this many times. The APIs were so inconsistent. I had to go through many hooks just to get the data I wanted. Openstack is nice, but Openstack community tried to create an open AWS. The problem is, everything gets so modular and too many components to deploy just to get Openstack working. It's a PaaS for IaaS foundation. Unless you have the resources to line up and support Openstack, I recommend just build on AWS/Google/Azure/Rackspace/Heroku/DigitalOcean, you name one. I wonder if big customers such as Bloomberg ever regret / think of moving to public/private IaaS.
- detaro 10y ago
  Agreed. Many moving parts, and every vendor could (and did) add their own variant of the moving parts, to integrate with their hardware/software/... And of course they then try to sell that and not the "standard" implementations, so not enough engineering work goes into those and the core components. It's a "collaborative" project with stakeholders that try to compete where they can... Visible also in things like the installation process (which for ages didn't have an "official" answer, so you had pay one of the big vendors to do it if you didn't want to try automate it yourself)
droopyEyelids 10y ago
Openstack was supposed to be a vendor based consultant bonanza. It wasn't designed by or for the users or customers, if it was designed at all. Instead it was a vehicle for hardware vendors to sell compatible product and consultants to build something they'd have to service forever afterwards. (Yes this is a cynical and half joking take, but it's also serious) So what went wrong? Welll, If you're not going to build a product that teams can actually figure out how to use, then you need to have Cisco or Oracle level sales talent behind it. OpenStack didn't have that, and maybe couldn't have it because there wasn't one boss company behind the product. Like I mentioned, there is a trade-off between the usability and required Sales Power. As far as usability goes, even consultancies that were directed to use and sell OpenStack solutions couldn't get their people to figure it out. A consultancy based technology has to be coherent enough that a junior associate can reasonably start billing hours for it. OpenStack will stymie a close-knit team of veteran "devops" people— And I'm talking about people who actually know systems administration and development, not a buzz word ninja.
- yeukhon 10y ago
  Yeah, but that was supposed to be Redhat, since Redhat is the largest sponsor behind Openstack.
- bonzini 10y ago
  The problem is that "consulting bonanza" with open source software is really hard to do. It is really, really hard to draw a line between what is custom engineering and what is a non-upstream patch you will have to maintain forever. And that's why Red Hat's mantra is to do everything upstream first, even at the cost of sometimes delivering features later. Everybody got that completely wrong. Open source works, but you still have to understand how to engineer it. So far, companies that succeeded are mostly following an "open core" model where they control the core too (Atlassian, Automatic). Red Hat is the exception, and with Red Hat putting a lot of effort on upstream OpenStack development no one could pull off open core for OpenStack. Mirantis has plenty of non-upstream code and last I heard wants to sell SaaS to work around that. Plus, no one devoted the right amount of engineering to the lower levels of the stack (at least QEMU and libvirt). You cannot seriously expect to partner with vendors for guest operating systems without knowing all of the stack---this was something else that Mirantis and others missed. So the problem was not that OpenStack was bad, it was that everybody thought open source is magic. But it isn't magic, and if it looks like magic, it means you don't understand it.
jasode 10y ago
>Is this related to some endemic problem with the technology, I believe the decline of OpenStack is inherent in the type of technology. I don't believe that type of "infrastructure plumbing" software lends itself to high-speed high-quality innovation in the "open source" model. Some reasons: 1) it's boring infrastructure software: Because it is software for "data center" infrastructure, it's not glamorous and interesting enough to attract programmers who don't interact with that world. Other successful open source projects like LAME MP3, ffmpeg, Linux kernel, etc have programmers that can experiment on laptops and ordinary users that can download and play with it. 2) no abundant source of high-quality code contributions: The enhancements you want contributed into OpenStack should be provided companies running complex private cloud operations. They would battle-test the code and that knowledge would trickle down into the open source contributions. However, a company that's facing the prospects of a complex private cloud would more likely choose Amazon AWS or Google Compute platforms instead of tackling OpenStack.[1] This removes a subset of potential OpenStack contributers. OpenStack is so complex to run/customize/maintain that it requires building up an internal staff with skills similar to AWS/Google/Facebook's datacenter engineers. If the company does decide to run OpenStack, it's likely they won't contribute back any source code. (Same as Linux situation where most users of it don't contribute source code.) This removes another subset of potential contributors. Probably the best "private cloud operating systems" are developed by Google/Facebook/Amazon/MS for their own datacenters and those 4 companies are not contributing to OpenStack. Wal-mart has sophisticated datacenter operations and they may be the largest Openstack user but their contributions to OpenStack do not match the new innovations of AWS mentioned at re:Invent[2] or Google CloudNext[3]. Yes, Red Hat is a sponsor of OpenStack but their internal cloud operations are not stressed like AWS/Azure/GCP with customer-facing challenges nor do they manage IT complexity like Wal-Mart. Sometimes, commercial versions of plumbing software do lose to open source projects. One example would be Microsoft's Dryad "distributed computing" losing to open source Hadoop even though MS had a 7 year headstart. However, Hadoop+HDFS is still not as fast or reliable as Google's internal distributed mapreduce. (Maybe the idea of buying a hundred expensive Windows Server licenses to satisfy a 100-node Dryad cluster contributed to the market ignoring it.) Based on history of how certain open source projects fall behind proprietary counterparts (such as OpenCL not as cutting edge performance as NVIDIA CUDA or OpenGL not matching MS DirectX features[4]), OpenStack seems on to on a similar trajectory of "not as good as the proprietary alternative". At this point in time, the "private cloud OS" space is moving very fast (possibly faster than flavor-of-the-month Javascript frameworks!) and the open source development model is not able to keep up. [1] http://www.computerworlduk.com/cloud-computing/guardian-goes-all-in-on-aws-public-cloud-after-openstack-disaster-3629790/ http://www.computerworlduk.com/cloud-computing/guardian-goes... [2] https://aws.amazon.com/new/reinvent/ https://aws.amazon.com/new/reinvent/ [3] https://blog.google/topics/google-cloud/100-announcements-google-cloud-next-17/ https://blog.google/topics/google-cloud/100-announcements-go... [4] https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/60544/why-do-game-developers-prefer-windows https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/6054...
kristianc 10y ago
No two OpenStack implementations are the same.
jldugger 10y ago
I figure Intel's participation was hinged on supporting a growing fleet of competitors to AWS, who would bid up chip prices. I guess that isn't happening. IMO, OpenStack was sort of a consortium effort to compete with VMWare, AWS and Salesforce, but it's operational model is closest to AWS. Nearly all the big enterprise IT companies tied their rafts together hoping to stave the flow of customers. It doesn't appear to have worked. RackSpace is advertising AWS migration and consulting services on podcasts I listen to. Not exactly a stellar testament for their own cloud product, but I think they still participate. HP's strategy is a bit haphazard given the recent corporate splitup. On the plus side, the HP/HPE split seems to have allowed HPE to ditch all the weird www# URLs. They retired their public cloud, but still sell hardware that can run OpenStack at least. Dell bought EMC, and proceeded to shut down their OpenStack offerings in favor of VMWare, which they own a substantial fraction of. IBM is in a continual process of downsizing its hardware divisions in pursuit of higher earnings per share. It seems their big push is cloudfoundry, which seems to be more about containers and k8s. So why are they bailing? I'm guessing: - it's way harder to hire support staff for OpenStack, than VMWare - AWS reduces capital costs and upfront investments - Customers on existing solutions aren't prepared to take advantage of new opportunities - Many of these companies have existing product lines they don't wish to disrupt
- pricechild 10y ago
  Check out their front page: https://www.rackspace.com/ https://www.rackspace.com/ Their own cloud isn't mentioned on it. They've obviously been putting their eggs in the consultancy basket for 6 months now, Hell, even if you go to cloud in the menu, they're only advertising other clouds: https://www.rackspace.com/cloud https://www.rackspace.com/cloud You have to go through the 'Infrastructure' menu to find their own cloud offerings. I'm wondering how long before we get notice we need to migrate away from them due to impending shutdowns.
  - snowwrestler 10y ago
    Wherever it says Openstack, that's Rackspace cloud. All the cloud stuff under Infrastructure is powered by Openstack, running on Rackspace hardware in their data centers.
vishvananda 10y ago
As one of the original authors of OpenStack and one of the top contributors, I may have a unique perspective. I think the OpenStack community made two related mistakes: 1. We thought that private clouds were generally valuable. In 2010 it seemed like everyone was going to have a private cloud. It turns out if you are a midsize business, having a rack of "cloud" doesn't really offer you much benefit over having a rack of managed vms. You still need to pay someone to manage that rack. The vast majority of the benefit of cloud comes from having a ton of workloads, which means a public cloud or a huge service-provider sized business. 2. We focused on community building by supporting all use cases. The best way to build an open-source community is to bring everyone in. The community grows fastest that way. Unfortunately, it also means that the product quickly becomes an unfocused frankenstein that is decent at everything and good at nothing. Projects like docker and mesos are suffering from the same problem. The end result of these mistakes OpenStack is good for certain use-cases. It does really well in large companies that need a public-cloud like environment to manage their infrastructure and can hire a team of people to manage it (e.g. comcast, verizon, e-bay, wal-mart). I don't know that the exodus is due to endemic problems so much as the market finally waking up and realizing that public cloud is the future.
- traf68 10y ago
  Anyone over 40 could have told you this. You want a private cloud and in what way is that different from managed infra: None. You folks popularized a misconception and hoped to monetize it in perpetuity and were eventually corrected by reality. So goes all big $$ software. Get ready for the next big thing and first step that...ad nauseam.
houseofzeus 10y ago
A large part of it is that those who can make money out of OpenStack are doing so, and those who aren't are doing the math and moving on to the next thing. Take a look at the sponsors for KubeCon and Dockercon and consider that many of these same companies were those originally trying to catch the OpenStack wave, and then ponder how many of them will be extracting themselves from those projects in 5 years (or at least lowering their investment, which as we see here is generally perceived as extraction). Prominent folks in the Kubernetes community will tell you that it's different but the recent conferences sure have a similar vibe to OpenStack summits circa ~2013 when the marketing really started to overtake what the technology could deliver.

api 10y ago

I don't know about today, but a few years ago I tried to set it up and found it to be an uninstallable massive ball of twine and chewing gum. It was shockingly clunky. I can't imagine running something like that in production. I suppose it'd be good job security for a lot of sysadmins.

throwasehasdwi 10y ago
I saw the same. It had great promise but was cobbled together poorly enough that nobody wants their name on it anymore :(
eropple 10y ago
It hasn't improved much, at least not of three months ago. Automating the rollout of any particularly is a Herculean task and even doing it by hand is onerous. Devstack works. Sort of. Poorly. Everything else is pay-a-consultant territory.
AndyNemmity 10y ago
I just moved into an openstack development job, and I'm struggling. So many technologies and complexities you have to keep in mind, even within a single project. I'm hoping it comes together soon. I have not provided a ton of value yet just sitting here learning, and breaking so many things.
- justinhensley 10y ago
  It is a lot to ingest. Can you elaborate on the OpenStack development you are doing? OpenStack refers to a number of different projects (Nova, Neutron, Horizon, etc). I would advise getting a high level understanding of how Nova, Neutron, and Cinder/Swift interoperate. Then drill in to Neutron. As with every other cloud platform I've worked with, most of the IaaS complexity lies in Networking, in my opinion. Neutron, and SDN in general, is a fairly complex topic depending on your experience with network architecture and administration.
  - AndyNemmity 10y ago
    I am doing Monasca development within an Openstack cloud running on Kubernetes and built with helm. So for example a development environment I use is a docker-compose environment building Monasca. That environment is a work in progress, so half the time I'm fighting that environment just to make a proper change. Then from there, I don't have Horizon, so I have to use command line apis directly to set everything that I wish to use. The whole thing has just been a challenge, every part I've had to learn in some respect. The actual code I've changed in Monasca, has been the simplest part so far. Validating it's correct, and testing it has been the far harder challenge. Monasca also being a bit of a challenge since it's several different repos of services working together, instead of a large one akin to Nova. I'll get it, but it's been a struggle so far.
- Bombthecat 10y ago
  Try to get the firm to hyperv. Most firms I hear of switch to it.
T_Rex 10y ago
I think it's improved a lot recently. We're using kolla + ansible for deploying, and it seems pretty seamless. https://github.com/openstack/kolla-ansible https://github.com/openstack/kolla-ansible

johngalt 10y ago

Openstack created a lot of possibilities for the way it "could" work or "should" work, but almost no methods where it does work. The problem with Openstack is it had too many moving parts, and no standard/reference implementation. It was destroyed by it's own grandiose goals. The project wanted to say 'yes' to every permutation of software. Making it a disaster from an operational standpoint. Everything promised, but nothing verified.

yeukhon 10y ago
I second this many times. The APIs were so inconsistent. I had to go through many hooks just to get the data I wanted. Openstack is nice, but Openstack community tried to create an open AWS. The problem is, everything gets so modular and too many components to deploy just to get Openstack working. It's a PaaS for IaaS foundation. Unless you have the resources to line up and support Openstack, I recommend just build on AWS/Google/Azure/Rackspace/Heroku/DigitalOcean, you name one. I wonder if big customers such as Bloomberg ever regret / think of moving to public/private IaaS.
detaro 10y ago
Agreed. Many moving parts, and every vendor could (and did) add their own variant of the moving parts, to integrate with their hardware/software/... And of course they then try to sell that and not the "standard" implementations, so not enough engineering work goes into those and the core components. It's a "collaborative" project with stakeholders that try to compete where they can... Visible also in things like the installation process (which for ages didn't have an "official" answer, so you had pay one of the big vendors to do it if you didn't want to try automate it yourself)

droopyEyelids 10y ago

Openstack was supposed to be a vendor based consultant bonanza. It wasn't designed by or for the users or customers, if it was designed at all. Instead it was a vehicle for hardware vendors to sell compatible product and consultants to build something they'd have to service forever afterwards. (Yes this is a cynical and half joking take, but it's also serious) So what went wrong? Welll, If you're not going to build a product that teams can actually figure out how to use, then you need to have Cisco or Oracle level sales talent behind it. OpenStack didn't have that, and maybe couldn't have it because there wasn't one boss company behind the product. Like I mentioned, there is a trade-off between the usability and required Sales Power. As far as usability goes, even consultancies that were directed to use and sell OpenStack solutions couldn't get their people to figure it out. A consultancy based technology has to be coherent enough that a junior associate can reasonably start billing hours for it. OpenStack will stymie a close-knit team of veteran "devops" people— And I'm talking about people who actually know systems administration and development, not a buzz word ninja.

yeukhon 10y ago
Yeah, but that was supposed to be Redhat, since Redhat is the largest sponsor behind Openstack.
bonzini 10y ago
The problem is that "consulting bonanza" with open source software is really hard to do. It is really, really hard to draw a line between what is custom engineering and what is a non-upstream patch you will have to maintain forever. And that's why Red Hat's mantra is to do everything upstream first, even at the cost of sometimes delivering features later. Everybody got that completely wrong. Open source works, but you still have to understand how to engineer it. So far, companies that succeeded are mostly following an "open core" model where they control the core too (Atlassian, Automatic). Red Hat is the exception, and with Red Hat putting a lot of effort on upstream OpenStack development no one could pull off open core for OpenStack. Mirantis has plenty of non-upstream code and last I heard wants to sell SaaS to work around that. Plus, no one devoted the right amount of engineering to the lower levels of the stack (at least QEMU and libvirt). You cannot seriously expect to partner with vendors for guest operating systems without knowing all of the stack---this was something else that Mirantis and others missed. So the problem was not that OpenStack was bad, it was that everybody thought open source is magic. But it isn't magic, and if it looks like magic, it means you don't understand it.

jasode 10y ago

>Is this related to some endemic problem with the technology, I believe the decline of OpenStack is inherent in the type of technology. I don't believe that type of "infrastructure plumbing" software lends itself to high-speed high-quality innovation in the "open source" model. Some reasons: 1) it's boring infrastructure software: Because it is software for "data center" infrastructure, it's not glamorous and interesting enough to attract programmers who don't interact with that world. Other successful open source projects like LAME MP3, ffmpeg, Linux kernel, etc have programmers that can experiment on laptops and ordinary users that can download and play with it. 2) no abundant source of high-quality code contributions: The enhancements you want contributed into OpenStack should be provided companies running complex private cloud operations. They would battle-test the code and that knowledge would trickle down into the open source contributions. However, a company that's facing the prospects of a complex private cloud would more likely choose Amazon AWS or Google Compute platforms instead of tackling OpenStack.[1] This removes a subset of potential OpenStack contributers. OpenStack is so complex to run/customize/maintain that it requires building up an internal staff with skills similar to AWS/Google/Facebook's datacenter engineers. If the company does decide to run OpenStack, it's likely they won't contribute back any source code. (Same as Linux situation where most users of it don't contribute source code.) This removes another subset of potential contributors. Probably the best "private cloud operating systems" are developed by Google/Facebook/Amazon/MS for their own datacenters and those 4 companies are not contributing to OpenStack. Wal-mart has sophisticated datacenter operations and they may be the largest Openstack user but their contributions to OpenStack do not match the new innovations of AWS mentioned at re:Invent[2] or Google CloudNext[3]. Yes, Red Hat is a sponsor of OpenStack but their internal cloud operations are not stressed like AWS/Azure/GCP with customer-facing challenges nor do they manage IT complexity like Wal-Mart. Sometimes, commercial versions of plumbing software do lose to open source projects. One example would be Microsoft's Dryad "distributed computing" losing to open source Hadoop even though MS had a 7 year headstart. However, Hadoop+HDFS is still not as fast or reliable as Google's internal distributed mapreduce. (Maybe the idea of buying a hundred expensive Windows Server licenses to satisfy a 100-node Dryad cluster contributed to the market ignoring it.) Based on history of how certain open source projects fall behind proprietary counterparts (such as OpenCL not as cutting edge performance as NVIDIA CUDA or OpenGL not matching MS DirectX features[4]), OpenStack seems on to on a similar trajectory of "not as good as the proprietary alternative". At this point in time, the "private cloud OS" space is moving very fast (possibly faster than flavor-of-the-month Javascript frameworks!) and the open source development model is not able to keep up. [1] http://www.computerworlduk.com/cloud-computing/guardian-goes-all-in-on-aws-public-cloud-after-openstack-disaster-3629790/ http://www.computerworlduk.com/cloud-computing/guardian-goes... [2] https://aws.amazon.com/new/reinvent/ https://aws.amazon.com/new/reinvent/ [3] https://blog.google/topics/google-cloud/100-announcements-google-cloud-next-17/ https://blog.google/topics/google-cloud/100-announcements-go... [4] https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/60544/why-do-game-developers-prefer-windows https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/6054...

kristianc 10y ago

No two OpenStack implementations are the same.

jldugger 10y ago

I figure Intel's participation was hinged on supporting a growing fleet of competitors to AWS, who would bid up chip prices. I guess that isn't happening. IMO, OpenStack was sort of a consortium effort to compete with VMWare, AWS and Salesforce, but it's operational model is closest to AWS. Nearly all the big enterprise IT companies tied their rafts together hoping to stave the flow of customers. It doesn't appear to have worked. RackSpace is advertising AWS migration and consulting services on podcasts I listen to. Not exactly a stellar testament for their own cloud product, but I think they still participate. HP's strategy is a bit haphazard given the recent corporate splitup. On the plus side, the HP/HPE split seems to have allowed HPE to ditch all the weird www# URLs. They retired their public cloud, but still sell hardware that can run OpenStack at least. Dell bought EMC, and proceeded to shut down their OpenStack offerings in favor of VMWare, which they own a substantial fraction of. IBM is in a continual process of downsizing its hardware divisions in pursuit of higher earnings per share. It seems their big push is cloudfoundry, which seems to be more about containers and k8s. So why are they bailing? I'm guessing: - it's way harder to hire support staff for OpenStack, than VMWare - AWS reduces capital costs and upfront investments - Customers on existing solutions aren't prepared to take advantage of new opportunities - Many of these companies have existing product lines they don't wish to disrupt

pricechild 10y ago
Check out their front page: https://www.rackspace.com/ https://www.rackspace.com/ Their own cloud isn't mentioned on it. They've obviously been putting their eggs in the consultancy basket for 6 months now, Hell, even if you go to cloud in the menu, they're only advertising other clouds: https://www.rackspace.com/cloud https://www.rackspace.com/cloud You have to go through the 'Infrastructure' menu to find their own cloud offerings. I'm wondering how long before we get notice we need to migrate away from them due to impending shutdowns.
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  Wherever it says Openstack, that's Rackspace cloud. All the cloud stuff under Infrastructure is powered by Openstack, running on Rackspace hardware in their data centers.

vishvananda 10y ago

As one of the original authors of OpenStack and one of the top contributors, I may have a unique perspective. I think the OpenStack community made two related mistakes: 1. We thought that private clouds were generally valuable. In 2010 it seemed like everyone was going to have a private cloud. It turns out if you are a midsize business, having a rack of "cloud" doesn't really offer you much benefit over having a rack of managed vms. You still need to pay someone to manage that rack. The vast majority of the benefit of cloud comes from having a ton of workloads, which means a public cloud or a huge service-provider sized business. 2. We focused on community building by supporting all use cases. The best way to build an open-source community is to bring everyone in. The community grows fastest that way. Unfortunately, it also means that the product quickly becomes an unfocused frankenstein that is decent at everything and good at nothing. Projects like docker and mesos are suffering from the same problem. The end result of these mistakes OpenStack is good for certain use-cases. It does really well in large companies that need a public-cloud like environment to manage their infrastructure and can hire a team of people to manage it (e.g. comcast, verizon, e-bay, wal-mart). I don't know that the exodus is due to endemic problems so much as the market finally waking up and realizing that public cloud is the future.

traf68 10y ago
Anyone over 40 could have told you this. You want a private cloud and in what way is that different from managed infra: None. You folks popularized a misconception and hoped to monetize it in perpetuity and were eventually corrected by reality. So goes all big $$ software. Get ready for the next big thing and first step that...ad nauseam.

houseofzeus 10y ago

A large part of it is that those who can make money out of OpenStack are doing so, and those who aren't are doing the math and moving on to the next thing. Take a look at the sponsors for KubeCon and Dockercon and consider that many of these same companies were those originally trying to catch the OpenStack wave, and then ponder how many of them will be extracting themselves from those projects in 5 years (or at least lowering their investment, which as we see here is generally perceived as extraction). Prominent folks in the Kubernetes community will tell you that it's different but the recent conferences sure have a similar vibe to OpenStack summits circa ~2013 when the marketing really started to overtake what the technology could deliver.