> On Jun 29, 2016, at 10:25 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On 29 Jun 2016, at 18:10, Doug Wiegley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Interesting discussion, but the first question I’d ask is ‘why’ ? >> >> Unlike openstack server software, the amphora are meant to be black box >> appliance images, so why do we want to run different distros on them? Is >> there a deployment scenario you’re concerned with, or other use case? > > Because vendors want to keep control for the contents of the image. For one, > Company X may not be particularly happy about shipping and supporting Ubuntu > based images through its channels. And without it, there is no end-to-end > support story for load balancers that the company could sell to its > customers. The company may also want to specialize the image contents in some > way, f.e. inject additional vendor specific security mechanisms, or ship a > new better version of haproxy. > > I believe it’s self evident, but for completeness: Company X engineers would > not support Ubuntu bits because 1. they don’t have expertise in Ubuntu. 2. it > would give a really twisted message to customers.
Fair enough, and that’s the reply that I was expecting. So either we make the amphora driver distro aware, or multiple amphora drivers/images. I presume that “company x” is willing to devote resources to this? Thanks, doug > > Ihar > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
