OpenStack To Crack Down On Incompatible Clouds 30
itwbennett writes "OpenStack is calling shenanigans on companies that call their services OpenStack but aren't truly interoperable. (HP, Rackspace, we're looking at you.) Josh McKenty, CTO of Piston and an OpenStack Foundation board member said that the board has 're-fired up' the interoperability working group, and though he admits it will take some time before the hammer falls, he called out HP and Rackspace as two offenders: 'Neither of their public clouds could be called OpenStack under current interoperability guidelines,' he said. For their part, HP has denied the claims, while Rackspace said in a blog post that it is on track for interoperability by the end of the year."
Save you the reading... (Score:3, Informative)
Guy said both aren't interoperable. HP says they are, supporting the core api and with no proprietary api extensions. Rackspace says they're not there yet, but they'll be there soon. Both say that every OpenStack implementation, regardless of where you go, will have its own bells and whistles.
Which makes sense... everyone wants to differentiate.
Re:Save you the reading... (Score:5, Informative)
Ideally they'd release a test suite, and anything that passes the test suite may be called OpenStack, while anything that fails may not. That would be a simple, objective criterion.
It looks like Rackspace made, and open sourced, the test suite.
OpenStack cracking down on Rackspace? (Score:5, Informative)
As someone who worked at Rackspace when we first announced that we were creating OpenStack, I have to at least chuckle at the idea. OpenStack likely would not be where it is now if Rackspace had been focused on complete interoperability too early. Rackspace implemented what they had, showed off the features that worked, and helped drive other companies to jump on the OpenStack bandwagon. They certainly deserve some time to get themselves in line.
I'm not sure what HP's excuse is, though.
Re:OpenStack cracking down on Rackspace? (Score:5, Informative)
HP doesn't need an excuse [itworld.com] because they're already compliant with the current definition of "interoperable".
The original story was misleading: OpenStack want to extend the definition to things that would mean HP would not be in compliance, but HP have already said they'd be happy to come into compliance once that definition has been set. Don't forget HP have people on staff who are heavily involved in OpenStack for precisely these kinds of reasons.