[colug-432] Red Hat in May

[Neal Dias]

No nerves struck at all, I'm no longer at Red Hat and have no skin in the
game either way, I just thought it might be of interest to hear a little
bit of the "internal" perspective. =]

-nd


On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Rick Troth <rmt at casita.net> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Neal Dias <roman at ensecure.org> wrote:
> > I can't really speak to the product since it's debut after I left Red
> Hat,
> > but I will say that from my personal observation, Red Hat really tries to
> > use open standards and protocols whenever possible.   ...
>
> Neal, thanks for chiming in.
> If I struck a nerve, I did not mean to.
>
> My life is in "z space".  APIs and protocols which work fine for Xen
> and KVM or for VMware and RHEV may fall flat when talking to z/VM,
> even z/KVM.  It's hard to be architecturally agnostic, even though
> many of us try diligently.  So I'm really really really looking for
> APIs and protocols which are common to any virtualization on any
> hardware.  I'll be (pleasantly) surprised if MIQ is completely
> "there".
>
> But please understand, I'm *excited* about it and planning to shove
> aside important prior commitments to be at the MIQ presentation.
>
> Simple stuff like the ability to script cloning or (virtual) hardware
> changes ... we're talking from the command line ... doesn't usually
> show up.  Sure, VMware will make a virtual CD appear when it wants to
> install its own driver.  But what if the customer wants to do that?
> (especially apart from the GUI)
>
> Nominally related, there is the up-coming "VM and Linux Workshop".
> This year it will be at IUPUI.  I believe RH is represented.  I do not
> believe MIQ is on the agenda.  (RedHatters, drop me a note off-list if
> there is interest.)
>
> I count five thriving architectures for Linux these days: x86, ARM,
> S/390 (aka "z", where I live), PPC, and SPARC.  (This last one may not
> count as "thriving" but Oracle keeps talking about it. And I probably
> missed another.)  Of these, about 80% support some form of
> virtualization.  How they do virtualization varies.  How they
> interface with hardware varies.  (Emulators don't qualify.  That's
> different.)
>
> >   ...   I've
> > been an advocate of "roll your own" management solutions such as
> > cfengine+SCM+kickstart etc.
>
> Mee too.
> Serious long term presence of any product or application requires that
> it integrate with the customer's operation.  So there's *always* some
> amount of "roll your own".  (And there's always back-pressure to
> minimize customization to ease upgrade pain.)
>
> Neal's discussion about RHN sounds like what I'm talking about.
>
>
> --
> -- R;   <><
> _______________________________________________
> colug-432 mailing list
> colug-432 at colug.net
> http://lists.colug.net/mailman/listinfo/colug-432
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.colug.net/pipermail/colug-432/attachments/20130420/5084acb6/attachment.html