Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Open Source

Microsoft Joins Open Infrastructure Foundation (zdnet.com) 28

An anonymous reader shares a report: For years, OpenStack, the open-source, Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) cloud {and related projects such as Airship, open-source tools for cloud provisioning, and Zuul, the Ansible-based continuous integration (CI) system} has hovered between what Gartner calls the Trough of Disillusionment and Slope of Enlightenment. Now with Microsoft joining the Open Infrastructure Foundation, it should be clear to anyone that OpenStack and its related technologies have jumped to the Plateau of Productivity. Why? Because together they can advance and profit from using these cloud technologies to further the hybrid cloud and, an OpenStack specialty, 5G. Microsoft is joining the Open Infrastructure Foundation as a Platinum Member. This move makes perfect sense. According to the 2021 OpenStack User Survey, which will be released shortly in Superuser Magazine, 40% of OpenStack users running their deployment in a multi-cloud configuration are already running OpenStack on Azure. Clearly, OpenInfra and Microsoft belong together.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Joins Open Infrastructure Foundation

Comments Filter:
  • Just as soon as a few problems [slashdot.org] are dealt with.

  • by TooTechy ( 191509 ) on Tuesday September 07, 2021 @01:21PM (#61772593)

    "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"

    • by Z80a ( 971949 )

      The modern microsoft is a bit different.
      Now comes the extend, but then comes monetize and "mismanage it until it dies on it's own"

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Every fucking article with the word "Microsoft" in it, people like you just can't stop being wrong can you?

      We're still waiting for them to extinguish anything, I mean, it's been 40 odd years, how long are you going to continue being wrong for. I mean, the phrase was used in relation to HTML, how did that go? Last I checked it's Google that hijacked web standards by subverting the standards process using WHATWG and buying off Mozilla to the tune of billions of dollars to support them. Now they're well and tr

      • by HiThere ( 15173 )

        If you haven't noticed them extinguishing something, you haven't paid attention. Admittedly, they haven't always been successful...but too often they have.

        OTOH, often these days it's more "corrupt" than "extinguish", but that makes a less memorable mnemonic, and the effect is about the same.

      • Another poster lower in the the thread posted this link,

        I'm re-posting it here so you can see it since it shows that MS hasn't changed much from when they were convicted of several crimes back in the 1990-2000s.

        https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]

        My 2 Yen;
        Microsoft may not have the same people running it as before but it is still the same company with the same goals that it did when Bill Gates ran it, dominate the market by any means for maximum profit, use that dominance to expand into new markets and domina

  • by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Tuesday September 07, 2021 @01:24PM (#61772597)

    Big Companies like Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon... Tend to join these open groups, when they are really struggling to get a headway with their own products, and need to build up some good will, Until people choose them for being more open, then shortly will swap the customers into their own closed platforms.

    • by Junta ( 36770 )

      As far as I can tell, Microsoft's own strategy seems to be doing ok, however it's clear they want to make all roads lead to Azure.

      For example, they are discontinuing the standalone Hyper-V server and telling everyone the replacement is the 'AzureStack HCI', which lets you do things on-premise, but basically screams at you to rent capacity from Microsoft too.

      I presume this is a hedging their bet strategy, to try to get on top of and inject an onramp to Azure to anything that will let them. It doesn't mean th

  • by FictionPimp ( 712802 ) on Tuesday September 07, 2021 @01:29PM (#61772619) Homepage

    I never thought you could fit so many buzz words into one exerpt.

  • by Rufty ( 37223 ) on Tuesday September 07, 2021 @01:49PM (#61772697) Homepage

    My buzzword bingo card just exploded!

  • This is the most corporate buzzword puff piece I've seen on /. in a long while. The fact that this was even posted instead of send to the spam bin is ridiculous.

    I guess this means the beginning of the end for the open infrastructure foundation. Any important things relying on them would do well to start working on an exit strategy.

    • by HiThere ( 15173 )

      I've never heard of that group before, but I think NOW is the time for any members to organize a fork. Before the standards get changed under their feet. Since it's a group, this may be easier or harder than for a project, and I can't guess which.

      OTOH, a lot of these groups of companies with "Open" in their name really aren't interested in open anyway, at least not to non-members. But when MS joins, everyone else tends to end up disadvantaged.

  • by Junta ( 36770 ) on Tuesday September 07, 2021 @02:00PM (#61772741)

    Large companies are aggressive on the marketing value of attaching their names to various projects/initiatives, so it's hard to read much of anything into one 'joining' one or another in terms of substantive value.

    OpenStack has been long problematic and has tried to rectify with a rebrand to Open Infrastructure to try to chase a broader and more vague mission. Which is a continuation of the problem OpenStack has long had, lack of concrete vision and a codebase that sort of meanders around at the whims of whatever company feels like dumping random code on them in the name of some marketing fodder that company wants, with those companies changing every few months, abandoning the crap they just dumped and new crap arriving to mess with things. So they aren't in the mode of saying 'no', even when 'no' is really called for.

    Further, rather than simplifying a core usage scenario, they instead tend to actually make some simple things more difficult. The networking configurations of an OpenStack installation tend to look what someone guesses a cloud provider does under the covers without actually having worked for/seeing one of those providers while ignoring the fact that on-premise doesn't need that degree of complication anyway. The result is that things often don't work and it's *really* hard to trace the networking because of various tortuous things they do to the stack. The 'boring' work of making it usable doesn't attract developers and companies actually like the prospect of a 'must have' tech that simply *demands* consultant hours to implement, so companies aren't in a mood to try to bring things down to earth either.

  • I'll kept this bookmarked:

    https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]

    Notice the date. Half a month ago.

Money will say more in one moment than the most eloquent lover can in years.

Working...