1 |
Note: I've snipped a lot of quoted text below, but took full context |
2 |
into account in my replies... |
3 |
|
4 |
Lance Albertson wrote:[Mon Jun 06 2005, 09:02:21PM EDT] |
5 |
> I'd say as a global goal, yes I'd agree with you. Gentoo as a global |
6 |
> entity should stay where its at, but that doesn't mean a subset of |
7 |
> Gentoo could have a goal towards being enterprise. |
8 |
|
9 |
I think that working on methods to use Gentoo in an enterprise setting |
10 |
is cool. I'm looking forward to seeing how people creatively solve |
11 |
some of the problems I mentioned without disrupting Gentoo's core |
12 |
development. I did not mean to imply that *all* of those problems |
13 |
need to be solved in order for Gentoo to be usable in an enterprise |
14 |
setting. |
15 |
|
16 |
> I don't really see Gentoo has a hobbyist distribution as a whole. |
17 |
|
18 |
Sorry if it seemed like I was putting Gentoo in a box. That wasn't my |
19 |
intent. I wasn't using the term "hobbyist" derogatorily, in case that |
20 |
wasn't clear. |
21 |
|
22 |
> I envision the 'server/enterprise' project to help create numerous |
23 |
> tools that help aide Gentoo in a production environment. There's |
24 |
> a lot of cool stuff we could do to help make it run better in that |
25 |
> type of environment. |
26 |
|
27 |
Totally. In fact, some of the same tools that would help enterprise |
28 |
users would also be useful to ordinary users. |
29 |
|
30 |
> > And that is why Gentoo exists for the developers first, the users |
31 |
> > second. |
32 |
> |
33 |
> I see your point there, but I also think theres a group of people |
34 |
> that also like gentoo in the enterprise realm. I remember at the |
35 |
> last LWE show in San Francisco, there were numerous people asking |
36 |
> about Gentoo and making it more 'stable'. This would really be tied |
37 |
> to an enterprise level of Gentoo. So I know there is interest out |
38 |
> there. We all have opinions on were Gentoo should fit in, so I don't |
39 |
> see why we couldn't fit there. |
40 |
|
41 |
If there are users wanting that, then I look forward to seeing them |
42 |
step up to the plate and help to solve the problems. I'd reiterate, |
43 |
though, that the solutions need to be creative enough that they don't |
44 |
disrupt Gentoo's core development. |
45 |
|
46 |
What do I mean by that? Let me give you an example: multilib support. |
47 |
Jeremy and others have been working on this for a while now. They've |
48 |
gone through a couple iterations of efforts, but take a look at |
49 |
Jeremy's blog and you'll see that he acknowledges it needs some |
50 |
reworking. Despite that, the default amd64 profile is multilib, and |
51 |
there is no higher indication of stability in portage than that. |
52 |
|
53 |
How should the enterprise subproject approach this problem? Options: |
54 |
(1) They could raise a fuss that Jeremy has taken amd64 down this path |
55 |
before the technology was ready. After all, that makes a mess of |
56 |
enterprise-readiness, because any consumer is going to need to migrate |
57 |
to the next multilib attempt in the future. (2) They could continue |
58 |
to rely on the non-multilib profile and wait for the multilib |
59 |
implementation to stabilize into something that isn't going to keep |
60 |
seeing big changes. |
61 |
|
62 |
IMHO the best approach is (2). It leaves the default amd64 profile |
63 |
multilib, which is fine for most users. It is more work for the |
64 |
enterprise subproject, but allows Jeremy to continue his development |
65 |
unhindered. |
66 |
|
67 |
Disclaimer: I don't know that much about multilib or the current state |
68 |
of its development. If I've mischaracterized it, I apologize in |
69 |
advance. My intent was to present a possible scenario and explain my |
70 |
reasoning why I hope nobody will try to retarget the core of Gentoo |
71 |
development at the enterprise. |
72 |
|
73 |
> Anyways, you made some great points on where we fall, but I don't |
74 |
> think we should shoot down the idea or potential because some of us |
75 |
> don't think it'd work. |
76 |
|
77 |
I agree with you. |
78 |
|
79 |
Corey Shields wrote:[Mon Jun 06 2005, 10:18:31PM EDT] |
80 |
> I don't feel that the list of requirements you have for "enterprise" |
81 |
> linux is necessarily what the enterprise needs.. |
82 |
> |
83 |
> I think Gentoo has some steps that can be taken to be a better |
84 |
> enterprise player, but to come out and state that it won't work is |
85 |
> a bit bold. |
86 |
|
87 |
Ah, sorry, that isn't quite what I meant. Rather I intended to point |
88 |
out that we should not be deluded into thinking that the changes |
89 |
required for Gentoo to be enterprise-ready are small. Some of the |
90 |
changes are surmountable, but each one could appear to necessitate, |
91 |
IMHO, a change at the core of Gentoo development. I would prefer for |
92 |
the solutions to be possible more transparently. |
93 |
|
94 |
For example, one way a company could presently deploy Gentoo |
95 |
internally would be to (1) make a snapshot of the portage tree and |
96 |
deploy based on that, (2) manually backport bug- and security-fixes to |
97 |
their snapshot. Sometimes the manual backport would be easy, |
98 |
sometimes it would be more difficult, and sometimes the decision would |
99 |
be made to move forward on a given package version. |
100 |
|
101 |
In other words, a company can implement a Gentoo product lifecycle |
102 |
as a wrapper around the existing Gentoo development process. It is |
103 |
a lot of work for the company, and they'd better hire some bright |
104 |
sysadmins, but it would be possible. |
105 |
|
106 |
If there is an enterprise subproject formed in Gentoo, I'd like to see |
107 |
their methods be similar. Develop tools that make it easier to manage |
108 |
and maintain an enterprise deployment, without changing how Gentoo is |
109 |
currently developed. Without hoisting new expectations on the Gentoo |
110 |
developers, release process, etc. |
111 |
|
112 |
> Wow... as a sysadmin who has run Gentoo in some very high profile |
113 |
> production systems that's a bit offensive to think I used it outside |
114 |
> of a hobbyist platform.. IBM didn't just donate a $30k system for |
115 |
> ppc64 development to make it better for someone's basement use, so |
116 |
> I don't think I'm alone in thinking that Gentoo is above "hobbyist". |
117 |
|
118 |
I did not intend "hobbyist" to be disparaging. I think that the big |
119 |
companies (including HP, who has also donated tens of thousands of |
120 |
dollars of equipment btw) see a lot of potential in Gentoo. |
121 |
|
122 |
> Gentoo is already a fun distribution.. I don't think that has to |
123 |
> change to meet enterprise goals. |
124 |
|
125 |
Great! I think we are closer in our perspectives than it seems. |
126 |
|
127 |
Regards, |
128 |
Aron |
129 |
|
130 |
-- |
131 |
Aron Griffis |
132 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |