> Speaking only for myself (but as someone who has been working on Ceph > for nearly a decade all the way back to DreamHost), I do not believe > IBM/Red Hat want to change the "upstream first" development model we > follow for Ceph. There's always been a little tension regarding how > much time engineers spend on upstream development vs supporting the > downstream products (and that existed even before Red Hat), but honestly > I'm not really worried about it. Ultimately releases flow from upstream > to downstream except in rare circumstances (ie immediate hotfixes > needed) and that model has worked well imho. > > FWIW a lot of the people working on Ceph are passionate about open > source. It's baked into our culture and integral to how we run the > project. A large part of the Crimson development for instance is being > done by outside contributors from Intel, Samsung, Qihoo 360, and > others. If significant changes were forced on Ceph there would be a lot > of upset people including me. That doesn't mean it can't happen, but > part of our job is to continually showcase and advocate for why open > source is a better model not only for the world at large, but for our > customers and IBM as well. I believe companies (mostly!) do what's in > their self interest, and I fully believe that it's in IBM's self > interest right now to keep investing in Ceph (and fwiw they have been > via additional upstream hardware purchases, testing, code contributions, > product integration, etc). > > Anyway, I don't know if that makes you feel any better, but imho Red Hat > and IBM have been good custodians of Ceph so far, and at least for the > immediate future I expect that to continue. Also fwiw, I still use > CentOS 8 stream for our upstream performance testing clusters and have > no plans to change any time soon. > I do have to say I too have more faith in a company like IBM compared to Google or Microsoft. I have always admired their involvement in projects like the power cpu's, ledger technology and open compute. This opinion of mine is not really formed on solid arguments though, since I am (unfortunately) not really active in these area's. However the current situation does reveal an issue of open source that support can be dropped instantly. I do not have a large cluster, but if you have 3000 hard drives, you are not easily going to switch to a different solution. I would like to share a thought with you, that is already on the back of my mind for quite some time. I am not really an expert in GPL and other open source licenses, but maybe you can put this to your legal department and see what they think of it. What if you would make a (new?) open source license that would address this issue of instantly dropping support and/or features. The license would ensure support for predefined period, would ensure that some features are not dropped and moved to some proprietary version. Some sort of commitment of support for critical patches, etc. Maybe it could be even beneficial for acquiring market share. _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
 |