×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Red Hat Makes Supported OpenStack Release

samzenpus posted about 10 months ago | from the check-it-out dept.

Red Hat Software 50

judgecorp writes "The OpenStack project could be the 'Linux of the cloud', according to Red Hat, which just announced a fully supported distribution of the open source software. The plan seems to be to offer it as a competitor to VMware's vSphere. From the article: 'The open source firm has been a member and supporter of OpenStack for some time, but with this announcement, its OpenStack distribution graduates from a “community release” similar to its Fedora Linux distribution, to a fully supported offering, comparable to its Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) OS. The company wants to position OpenStack as a future cloud platform analogous to Linux, and is building it into a whole set of announcements and programs.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

50 comments

Wow. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44002889)

I have no fucking idea what this is or means. So I guess I don't care?

Re:Wow. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44003063)

Yep, nothing to see here. Just another buzzword platform.

Re:Wow. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44003073)

I have no fucking idea what this is or means. So I guess I don't care?

This is why I keep coming back to slashdot year after year after year. The level of insight in the comments has been more consistent than any other site I've been to!

sorry, don't trust redhat (1)

NemoinSpace (1118137) | about 10 months ago | (#44003023)

I like redhat, (Centos), I just think it's only a matter of time before they abandon yet another project. Like dumping the desktop. Guess I'm just old fashioned.

Re:sorry, don't trust redhat (2)

vux984 (928602) | about 10 months ago | (#44003069)

Redhat is all about servers so the desktop isn't really a valid comparison. I don't know whether they'll stick with it or not, but openstack llooks more up their alley than a linux desktop, not to mention more profit potential.

Re:sorry, don't trust redhat (0)

iggymanz (596061) | about 10 months ago | (#44003101)

RedHat will fork important wares, give a free lite version so people can be guinea pigs for possible future packages while not using the real stuff, and not let everyone into the repository for the supported wares.

Redhat forgets who made them successful, and they foget 95% of what is in their wares is other open source project's work.

Re:sorry, don't trust redhat (5, Insightful)

AdamWill (604569) | about 10 months ago | (#44003497)

Red Hat is the sole, most significant contributor or one of the main contributors to to an awful lot of those 'other open source projects':

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Red_Hat_contributions [fedoraproject.org] (and that's massively incomplete)

It's a core principle of RH work that as much work as possible is done or pushed upstream, and that RH products should be 100% F/OSS (the exception to this is when we acquire proprietary software and spend a couple of years doing the legal and engineering spadework to make it 100% F/OSS, which is just a terrible thing for us to do, I know).

All of the source for RHEL is publicly available - http://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/6Server/en/os/SRPMS/ [redhat.com] (and other paths on that server), go knock yourself out. (This is not minimal legal compliance, BTW; minimal legal compliance would be providing only copyleft sources, and providing them only to customers. We don't have to put the entire SRPM set up for public download on our own servers). You can get an evaluation version of RHEL 6 for free at https://ca.redhat.com/products/enterprise-linux/server/download.html [redhat.com] - where 'evaluation' just means 'you only get updates for X days'. You can buy the RHEL Developer Suite - https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/developers/rhel_developer_suite.html [redhat.com] - which includes RHEL with every single add-on, and access to all updates, just like having a commercial support contract only without the commercial support - for a measly $99. Or you can just go download CentOS or Scientific Linux, which projects RH does nothing whatsoever to impede.

RH is the single leading contributor to upstream OpenStack: http://readwrite.com/2013/04/16/will-red-hats-openstack-contributions-turn-to-gold [readwrite.com]

Name me a company that manages to run a sustainable business while contributing more to F/OSS development. One company.

We eat our own (4, Informative)

robla (4860) | about 10 months ago | (#44003647)

So, to the Red Hat employees reading this: thank you! Red Hat does great work for the world. We as a community also tend to undervalue a $1B/year publicly traded company with a large sales force out explaining to every potential enterprise customer that will listen the virtues of free software.

The Dev Suite thing is kinda cool. Not that I'd buy it :-), but interesting to know that option exists.

Re:We eat our own (1)

AdamWill (604569) | about 10 months ago | (#44004155)

Yeah, I only learned about it from Thomas Cameron at LFNW this year! I actually had no idea we sold that :P

Re:sorry, don't trust redhat (0)

iggymanz (596061) | about 10 months ago | (#44003801)

yes, people do knock themselves trying to figure out how to compile that stuff, it's hard. Let me clue you in, a decent distro gives access to binaries. A decent distro doesn't have a second distro to make people guinea pigs for trial balloons while restricting access to the main distro. Your money is from support, not whether or not someone can get your binaries.

I can get an evaluation of competing distros and get updates forever. That includes the distro that is eating Red Hat's lunch and has surpassed it in number of server installations. And the derived distro based on that which is dominating the Linux desktop.

The biggest contributors to open source are massive projects, not companies.

Red Hat's claim to fame really is just being certified to run expensive proprietary wares like Oracle DBMS or Websphere.. for 95% of business applications, there are superior robust open source alternatives of which none require red hat.

Re:sorry, don't trust redhat (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44003943)

Which distro is eating Redhat's lunch? Let me finish that thought for you, I think you mean Ubuntu, which has seen a large amount of angry users in the last 2 years.

Redhat is a fantastic server distro. Its rock-solid stable, has long term support, and you'll never find that you have problems with support. In fact, the Redhat folk bend over backwards to support you. They charge for their enterprise offering? What sort of a world do we live in when people charge money for a support contract?

Fedora is free, and RHEL is based on Fedora - its their proving grounds. "But that's not RHEL!" Of course not. Its the bleeding edge. RHEL is a few steps ahead of debian in terms of modern versions but is as stable.

Like you, I once talked badly about Redhat, this was many many years ago, before I had to support clouds of thousands and thousands of virtual machines. Try supporting and auditing that many servers with any other distro - let me know how it goes for you and how long it takes to support. (I program c, c++, perl, ruby, I've been using Linux for 16 years and have contributed to many open source projects. Don't even try to say I'm a newb or if I knew what I was doing I'd use .

Redhat's claim to fame is that you get what you pay for. Sure, there are other Linux distros you can pay for - but have you tried to support them in a large centralized manner with serious oversight? (Suse, I'm looking at you...)

Sure, Debian is great. But when it comes to convincing the director/executive level folk to go with Debian and then pay some 3rd party company of unknowns to support it.................Well, I'm just saying, Redhat is my choice, and I think they are fucking awesome.

Re:sorry, don't trust redhat (2)

TheGreatDonkey (779189) | about 10 months ago | (#44007519)

"Thousands and thousands of virtual machines. Try supporting and auditing that many servers with any other distro ..."

Puppet, CFEngine, Tripwire, etc. all play well with other Linux distros as well. If you're talking about just using RedHat Satellite to manage such a beast, get out of 2001, RH really missed the boat on pushing such potential in the Enterprise space and only over past year seem to be winking at Puppet. If you're talking about their efforts on OpenStack, great, but you still need that next layer down.

Re:sorry, don't trust redhat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44013157)

They've been 'winking' at it for much longer than the last year. We use Puppet with a combination of Foreman as an ENC which is written by...........wait for it............Redhat. Sure, other distros play nicely with puppet and foreman - in fact, foreman supports your solaris boot scrips.

We are unfortunately still using spacewalk for RPM version management, all the config/cobbler stuff has been replaced with better tools and its now a legacy product, waiting for removal. Openstack is the last piece of the puzzle to help convince management to off the VMware side and replace it with an open source tool.

Its really about not the money, its the philosophy of control - I like having the ability to look at source before opening a damn support ticket only to find out that I've Been Doing It Wrong. ;-(

Re:sorry, don't trust redhat (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about 10 months ago | (#44013223)

angry desktop users. we're talking servers here.

Fedora means making QA department out of users. screw that mentality.

we've been throwing out the Red Shat at my employer, things go much better on other distros. Red Hat is shaky jello next to Debian, for instance.

Re:sorry, don't trust redhat (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 10 months ago | (#44003945)

I can get an evaluation of competing distros and get updates forever. That includes the distro that is eating Red Hat's lunch and has surpassed it in number of server installations. And the derived distro based on that which is dominating the Linux desktop.

The one that Mark Shuttleworth admits is not profitable while Red Hat is? Eating Red Hat's lunch? Good joke.

Re:sorry, don't trust redhat (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about 10 months ago | (#44013227)

yes, people are throwing out the Red Rat and last mid-year it was surpassed in use on servers. You are unclear how open source works. Redhat will never get those people back, we see the butt naked emperor and he's a dying fool

Re:sorry, don't trust redhat (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about 10 months ago | (#44004133)

Superior alternatives to websphere? Guess what, redhat owns jboss.

Re:sorry, don't trust redhat (1)

clark0r (925569) | about 10 months ago | (#44004703)

... and JBoss also kicks ass - from someone who's had to support multiple clusters of application servers distributed around the globe. RedHat + JBoss make this dead easy to manage and monitor, thank god!

P.S. it's now called WildFly.

Re:sorry, don't trust redhat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44006959)

Community is called WildFly. Red Hat's supported version is still called JBoss.

Re:sorry, don't trust redhat (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 10 months ago | (#44009167)

Almost entirely in agreement with your post, but this one:

Or you can just go download CentOS or Scientific Linux, which projects RH does nothing whatsoever to impede.

isn't so. Check out the Centos-devel list from 2010/2011 and/or KB's blog. Redhat does not release its build system, and it's not entirely self-building (in the GPL sense, and yes I know the distro in whole isn't under GPL). The CentOS guys had to do a tremendous amount of trial-and-error work in the build system to build CentOS 6 from the SRPM releases. SL just winged it and got out earlier but did not achieve binary compatibility that way.

I understand this is because of what Oracle does, and kinda get it, but SL and CentOS get caught in the turbulence of that spat.

Re:sorry, don't trust redhat (1)

AdamWill (604569) | about 10 months ago | (#44012251)

I'm not sure we're not talking at cross-purposes, but the thing we basically did to spite Oracle (can you tell I'm not in corporate communications?) was make our kernel sources a big glob instead of carefully splitting out the individual patches we were applying. That doesn't have any particular consequences for a distro that just wants to build whatever RH is building; it's only a problem if you want to claim you know exactly what's going on. You know, like someone who's selling...professional support....might want to...

I don't know if there's another issue you're referring to, though, I don't actually *use* RHEL or CentOS myself at all (only Fedora). I could have written something more specific, though, which would have communicated my meaning better: RH doesn't actively take decisions with the intent of causing problems for freely-distributed RHEL clones, whereas we certainly could start doing that if we chose to. It's possible that choices RH makes for other goals might sometimes cause them inconvenience, I don't discount the possibility.

Re:sorry, don't trust redhat (0)

BitZtream (692029) | about 10 months ago | (#44003581)

Redhat forgets who made them successful, and they foget 95% of what is in their wares is other open source project's work.

And Linux Zealots almost universally forget what made it relevant, servers ran by commercial companies for closed source services.

Outside of fanboys and Google, no one actually uses a Linux desktop. (Qualification: If you are ranting at me on slashdot, you have to be an idiot to not realize you're a fanboy)

Re:sorry, don't trust redhat (2)

iggymanz (596061) | about 10 months ago | (#44003659)

but we fanboys made that server business possible, we got linux in the door over the last 15 years in corporations. the services are a mixture of open and closed.

Re:sorry, don't trust redhat (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about 10 months ago | (#44003693)

Or, you know, somebody who develops software for linux. Which, given that this is /., is a safe assumption to make that there are a few here. Or somebody who wants to breath new life into old PC hardware.

Re:sorry, don't trust redhat (2)

clark0r (925569) | about 10 months ago | (#44004721)

The last corporation I worked for had their entire estate of developers running a mixture of CentOS / RedHat on their developer desktops. You can't tell me 5000+ employees of this corporation are 'fanboys', can you?

The current business I work for has all of their systems administrators running Linux on their desktop (Fedora and/or CentOS). If you're a serious user of the Linux technology stack, you'd better not be using Windows as by comparison it's shit.

Re:sorry, don't trust redhat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44003817)

Redhat forgets who made them successful, and they foget 95% of what is in their wares is other open source project's work.

RedHat contributes far more than any other organization and pays a lot of the developers that work on crucial projects. Fucking dimwit.

Re:sorry, don't trust redhat (1)

bws111 (1216812) | about 10 months ago | (#44003115)

What do you mean, dumping the desktop? It is the first product listed on the 'Red Hat Linux' page.

Re:sorry, don't trust redhat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44003195)

The situation with Fedora and RHEL is much different than it was in the golden days of Red Hat Linux. Different times, I guess.

Quite a shame, if they desired to "save" the Linux Desktop years ago, we'd probably live in a diffente world. Can't state for sure that it would be better.

Re:sorry, don't trust redhat (2)

NemoinSpace (1118137) | about 10 months ago | (#44003247)

I meant as in "Fedora". That was years ago. So maybe I stand corrected. Only goes to prove that once you lose a customer, you lose him for life. Haven't been to their site in five years. I used to buy a RedHat CD every year just to "help out" Now I find it's better to give directly to the authors. - keep those pay pal links!

Re:sorry, don't trust redhat (0)

BitZtream (692029) | about 10 months ago | (#44003603)

Do you really think that you 'helping out' was a good enough reason for them to dump money into a product no one actually was willing to pay for rather than into products that actually pay to keep the lights on?

Whats better ... you love the paypal links ... I can not think of a worse way to send money, they are worse than the credit card companies.

You talk like you care, but your actions show its more of just a show to pretend you care and give you a poor claim to 'supporting' something.

Re:sorry, don't trust redhat (1)

NemoinSpace (1118137) | about 10 months ago | (#44012911)

oh, a pissing contest? I'm sorry my 10 bucks wasn't enough to impress you. Hopefully it hits a nerve with a few people out of the 90% of people that suck the tit of "free" software. I'm sure they cashed the check. What I don't care about is your useless attack of my motives.

Re:sorry, don't trust redhat (2)

AdamWill (604569) | about 10 months ago | (#44003395)

So, which OpenStack provider would you trust instead, which has been around for more than 5 years (the length of time between the first RH release in 1998 and the point where 'Red Hat Linux' turned into Fedora around 2003) and has never discontinued a single product?

Everytime I hear the word "cloud" (1)

future assassin (639396) | about 10 months ago | (#44003095)

I now associated with "rental fee" No more ownership.

Re:Everytime I hear the word "cloud" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44003213)

I find OpenStack/KVM as a much better option than VMWare.

There have been releases for Openstack for quite a long time ago, even some semi-official. This decision will make RHEL a easit to deploy platform, just that.

Re:Everytime I hear the word "cloud" (1)

IMightB (533307) | about 10 months ago | (#44003525)

I like openstack as well, to the point where I rolled our own rpms for it based on the epel stuff. Because Openstack (to use all the neat stuff like OpenVSwitch) needs a lot of fairly cutting edge tech that was not available when RHEL6 was released, I had to package our own kernel to support things like newer virtualization features, OpenVSwitch, new versions of sqlachelmy etc etc etc.

I guess what I'm curious about is, are they backporting all the kernel features and various tech (OpenVSwitch) that will make it a true competitor? or are they sticking with a somewhat lackluster rollout on RHEL6 to maintain compatibility and save the nifty stuff for RHEL7?

Re:Everytime I hear the word "cloud" (1)

LordLucless (582312) | about 10 months ago | (#44003461)

That's probably because you're hearing it in the context of "using" the cloud (ie: using other people's systems to store data). OpenStack is more about "running" a cloud.

OpenStack (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44003205)

OpenStack is mostly crap from what I can tell. The private cloud we have at work is better. Of course, that doesn't stop the suits from asking why we aren't using it.

Swift in particular is a joke. Another hashing ring. Super, like the world didn't have enough of those already.

Re:OpenStack (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44003309)

What private cloud do you have at work?

Re:OpenStack (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44003359)

If you have to ask you can't afford it, kiddo.

Re:OpenStack (1)

halltk1983 (855209) | about 10 months ago | (#44009063)

Maybe that excessive cost is why the "suits" keep asking? Being expensive doesn't necessarily make things better. Just because you can't make something work doesn't mean it doesn't work well.

/Disclaimer: I work for Rackspace. But my opinions are my own.

OpenStack doesn't make a lot of sense to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44003263)

Business interest in cloud computing seems to be mostly about the pay-as-you-go model, and that implies third party hosting like AWS. But once you've turned over your data center to a third party, seems that you wouldn't care that much about the cloud infrastructure, you just care about the virtual machine images and their performance characteristics, along with the SLAs, backup/restore and other practical matters. So the API wars stuff should be chiefly of interest to the limit population of companies hosting public clouds.

Re:OpenStack doesn't make a lot of sense to me (1)

halltk1983 (855209) | about 10 months ago | (#44009095)

There are a lot of companies out there that would love to have their own cloud infrastructure, either because they don't want to trust it to someone else, or because they need specialized hardware or have specific requirements, or even just because they get grants for capital expenditure but not ongoing costs. OpenStack is to help those people build their own cloud, in arenas where it makes sense for them.

That's great, but Cannonical already does that... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44003283)

Cannonical (the makers of Ubuntu) already does this - full support from the OS on up through the entire stack, and includes their own tools (juju, etc.) in addition to the OpenStack stuff.

Have been doing it for awhile, too.

Plus, they're supporting VMWare as a VM hypervisor, and integration with VMWare for their various layered tools, too.

So, I think this is just RedHat playing catchup.

Note: I just had a Cannonical presentation today, but I don't work for them.

Re:That's great, but Cannonical already does that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44003377)

but I don't work for them.

Riiiight. *wink*

OpenStack competes with vSphere? (3, Interesting)

BitZtream (692029) | about 10 months ago | (#44003551)

No, not even close.

Have they used vSphere/ESXi? Other than both of them do something with Virtual Machines, I'm fairly certain they've never compared the two things.

OpenStack is your typical big open source mess that requires more than some assembly of parts that were clearly designed for Amazon scale sites rather than what most of the world would want.

VMware's products are semi-polished tools that a semi-competent Windows admin can fumble their way through and work with pretty GUIs to make it all work without much effort.

VMware is like normal furniture and OpenStack is like Ikea ... except you also have to cut most of the parts out yourself as well with OpenStack.

OpenStack is about 9 billion times more complicated than it should be for limited amount of functionality it actually provides overall.

Re:OpenStack competes with vSphere? (3, Insightful)

IMightB (533307) | about 10 months ago | (#44003715)

I don't find openstack to be overly-complicated for what it provides. Coming from a "I have managed both Openstack and VMware solutions" point of view, it is a rapidly evolving project with many big names behind it that, as as of yet, does not have much polish. That being said there is a tidal wave of support behind openstack at the moment.

If you have the money, VMWare is currently a superior solution, Give OpenStack a few years and I believe it will be on-par or ahead of VMWare.

Re:OpenStack competes with vSphere? (2)

trollebolle (1210072) | about 10 months ago | (#44003863)

Summary is wrong. Openstack would be a (probably, I haven't compared the two) competitor to vCloud. The direct competitor to vSphere is RHEV.

Re:OpenStack competes with vSphere? (1)

thule (9041) | about 10 months ago | (#44007935)

OpenStack in cloud. Cloud is more than VM's. VMWare is about VM's. RedHat's answer to VM's is RHEV. RHEV is not as complicated as OpenStack.

People, please do NOT use OpenStack as a replacement for VMWare, you will be burned!
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...