openstack team mailing list archive

[Ewan Mellor <Ewan.Mellor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I can't tell you how to run your business. All I know is that if a
> client of mine gave me a functional requirement specification that
> would
> be perfectly met by DHCP, but they had a piece of paper from the
> mid-90's that said "DHCP isn't allowed. Just because." on which they
> refused to budge, I'd pass on the contract. I personally don't want to
> facilitate stupid policies. That's my policy.

I love the happy world you live in.  Selling to enterprises is 80% working around idiotic policies made in the mid-90s.  This is entirely my point.  I don't care that you could engineer the system in different ways.  So could I.  None of that is going to change the policies that people have in place, so if OpenStack is going to be used outside of green-field deployments, then it's going to have to be flexible in the ways that it works.

> > Regardless of those four, your one seems like a complete deal-breaker
> > to me.  If that's true (and it's not something that I'm aware of one
> > way or another) then we shouldn't even be having this discussion.  We
> > can't build a solution that can't reliably configure Windows VMs.
> 
> a) I don't think we should generally limit ourselves to whatever
> Windows
> can support.

I didn't say that we should.  I said that we have to have a system that can support Windows guests.  That doesn't mean that we can't have a richer system for other OSs.  This thread started with the proposal that we should remove non-DHCP support.  I say that that is infeasible (regardless of the Windows issue).  I didn't say that we can't have richer systems that rely on DHCP -- we totally can.  We have to support both though.

Ewan.