5 ms·

Yeah, but feels like there's a conflict of interest. Xen Orchestra is made more difficult to deploy than it needs to be, since it'd reduce sales of XOA if it wa

by pikdum 4y ago

Yeah, but feels like there's a conflict of interest. Xen Orchestra is made more difficult to deploy than it needs to be, since it'd reduce sales of XOA if it was easy. It's also not obvious on https://xen-orchestra.com https://xen-orchestra.com that it is actually open source, seems like it's intentionally made confusing to get you to use XOA instead.

plam503711 4y ago
How difficult is to make a `yarn && yarn build`? Also this is important to have a validated/tested environment to deploy your code (that's why a VM is really handy). Regarding XO website, it was again for historical reasons when we sold mostly to Citrix (where the words "open source" was feared by those customers). Now we got plans to have a better split between org projects and the whole "stack" to be able to compete with VMware (eg more commercial stuff on Vates website). Again, most of what you see now is in transition before a clearer model since we have the whole stack control :)
- pikdum 4y ago
  > How difficult is to make a `yarn && yarn build`? Not difficult, but not necessary either. I could also figure out how to build the XCP-ng ISO myself, but I think everybody uses the builds you provide instead. > Again, most of what you see now is in transition before a clearer model since we have the whole stack control :) Good to hear, looking forward to see what you guys come up with.
  - plam503711 4y ago
    I understand your point. However, anything else might require time to maintain it (a script, a container, a VM, whatever you want: people will expect it to work obviously, so this needs time/effort to test it, unlike a simple documentation). Do we want to maintain that? I'm not sure due to the huge backlog and higher priorities. But I'm eager to have more resources to change that in the future :) (all things considered, an official "community" container might be the easiest path, but we'd like to have maintainers outside Vates)

by pikdum 4y ago

plam503711 4y ago

How difficult is to make a `yarn && yarn build`? Also this is important to have a validated/tested environment to deploy your code (that's why a VM is really handy). Regarding XO website, it was again for historical reasons when we sold mostly to Citrix (where the words "open source" was feared by those customers). Now we got plans to have a better split between org projects and the whole "stack" to be able to compete with VMware (eg more commercial stuff on Vates website). Again, most of what you see now is in transition before a clearer model since we have the whole stack control :)

pikdum 4y ago
> How difficult is to make a `yarn && yarn build`? Not difficult, but not necessary either. I could also figure out how to build the XCP-ng ISO myself, but I think everybody uses the builds you provide instead. > Again, most of what you see now is in transition before a clearer model since we have the whole stack control :) Good to hear, looking forward to see what you guys come up with.
- plam503711 4y ago
  I understand your point. However, anything else might require time to maintain it (a script, a container, a VM, whatever you want: people will expect it to work obviously, so this needs time/effort to test it, unlike a simple documentation). Do we want to maintain that? I'm not sure due to the huge backlog and higher priorities. But I'm eager to have more resources to change that in the future :) (all things considered, an official "community" container might be the easiest path, but we'd like to have maintainers outside Vates)