Some of what you said applies, but I think the analogy doesn't go that far. Just to point out / correct some things: Openstack is not very anti-VMware. There are even backend drivers that allow you to manage VMware environment using openstack as a frontend. Never tried it in practice, but some company bothered to write / contribute it, so it must be working.
Application deployment via docker - openstack supports both docker and libvirt/lxc. Unless you meant technologies running in the management layer - in that case I think coreos and similar projects aim for a completely different use case, not just architecture. Openstack works well with not trusted, heterogeneous environments and separation of tenants. If you're running your own cluster, with your own in-house produced stack and control over processes, coreos may be a better idea.
Or maybe you even want to deploy coreos cluster on real hardware automatically? That's also something openstack could do using baremetal backend.
Basically what I'm trying to say is: openstack is a framework more than a single solution. It may not work for every use case, or it may require some specific config to be useful. But it shouldn't limit the architecture beyond: it's got an api.
Technically speaking, I agree that it's a not a single solution and can be flexible. That said, it fundamentally presumes VMs, attachable disks, and networks as "the objects that matters" for your cloud. It's a good assumption for now, but maybe not for 5 years from now.
My post was mostly about the funding and political context that is driving OpenStack momentum, and its similarity to past attempts for vendors to gang up and try to take on the market leader (AWS). The community is all about the vendors, currently. Users are growing, but still the minority. And that's a warning sign, because it may mean the users really just don't care as much as the investors in OpenStack think they will.
Comments
Some of what you said applies, but I think the analogy doesn't go that far. Just to point out / correct some things: Openstack is not very anti-VMware. There are even backend drivers that allow you to manage VMware environment using openstack as a frontend. Never tried it in practice, but some company bothered to write / contribute it, so it must be working.
Application deployment via docker - openstack supports both docker and libvirt/lxc. Unless you meant technologies running in the management layer - in that case I think coreos and similar projects aim for a completely different use case, not just architecture. Openstack works well with not trusted, heterogeneous environments and separation of tenants. If you're running your own cluster, with your own in-house produced stack and control over processes, coreos may be a better idea.
Or maybe you even want to deploy coreos cluster on real hardware automatically? That's also something openstack could do using baremetal backend.
Basically what I'm trying to say is: openstack is a framework more than a single solution. It may not work for every use case, or it may require some specific config to be useful. But it shouldn't limit the architecture beyond: it's got an api.
Technically speaking, I agree that it's a not a single solution and can be flexible. That said, it fundamentally presumes VMs, attachable disks, and networks as "the objects that matters" for your cloud. It's a good assumption for now, but maybe not for 5 years from now.
My post was mostly about the funding and political context that is driving OpenStack momentum, and its similarity to past attempts for vendors to gang up and try to take on the market leader (AWS). The community is all about the vendors, currently. Users are growing, but still the minority. And that's a warning sign, because it may mean the users really just don't care as much as the investors in OpenStack think they will.