|
Re: netdata shitshow
Alexis, thank you for the insights.
> "Netdata is a fine project, but we struggled (as a TOC) to see it as cloud native."
> "The decision was unanimous, in that no TOC member wished to sponsor
Alexis, thank you for the insights.
> "Netdata is a fine project, but we struggled (as a TOC) to see it as cloud native."
> "The decision was unanimous, in that no TOC member wished to sponsor
|
By
Costa Tsaousis
·
#3434
·
|
|
Re: netdata shitshow
I was thinking of this comment: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/163#issuecomment-437167354
Harbor incubation proposal by clouderati · Pull Request #163 · cncf/toc · GitHub
+1 non-binding. Our
I was thinking of this comment: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/163#issuecomment-437167354
Harbor incubation proposal by clouderati · Pull Request #163 · cncf/toc · GitHub
+1 non-binding. Our
|
By
Roger Klorese <roger.klorese@...>
·
#3433
·
|
|
Re: netdata shitshow
Perhaps you’re thinking further kubernetes integrations which was in the slide deck for the TOC presentation. That preso was on 2018-06-19 while the links I provided for an early tagged release
Perhaps you’re thinking further kubernetes integrations which was in the slide deck for the TOC presentation. That preso was on 2018-06-19 while the links I provided for an early tagged release
|
By
Mark Peek
·
#3432
·
|
|
Re: netdata shitshow
Wasn't Harbor originally delivered ONLY as a virtual appliance, with the containers coming later? The discussion of whether to accept it as a CNCF project received pushback at the time based
Wasn't Harbor originally delivered ONLY as a virtual appliance, with the containers coming later? The discussion of whether to accept it as a CNCF project received pushback at the time based
|
By
Roger Klorese <roger.klorese@...>
·
#3431
·
|
|
Re: netdata shitshow
Costa
The decision was unanimous, in that no TOC member wished to sponsor
Netdata. Had a sponsor stepped forward, Netdata would have been
invited to initiate the DD process for incubation, with
Costa
The decision was unanimous, in that no TOC member wished to sponsor
Netdata. Had a sponsor stepped forward, Netdata would have been
invited to initiate the DD process for incubation, with
|
By
alexis richardson
·
#3430
·
|
|
Re: netdata shitshow
+1, the TOC felt the same way when the voting happened.
<markpeek=vmware.com@...> wrote:
+1, the TOC felt the same way when the voting happened.
<markpeek=vmware.com@...> wrote:
|
By
alexis richardson
·
#3429
·
|
|
Re: netdata shitshow
Matt,
Yes, indeed, we do have the Definition. The TOC worked on this along
with the layered stack (architecture) and landscape (which fits into
the stack). You are 100% right that there should be
Matt,
Yes, indeed, we do have the Definition. The TOC worked on this along
with the layered stack (architecture) and landscape (which fits into
the stack). You are 100% right that there should be
|
By
alexis richardson
·
#3428
·
|
|
Re: netdata shitshow
Roger,
I get your point but disagree with your example.
Harbor is delivered as a set of containers and I would consider it cloud native. For convenience it is also delivered as a virtual
Roger,
I get your point but disagree with your example.
Harbor is delivered as a set of containers and I would consider it cloud native. For convenience it is also delivered as a virtual
|
By
Mark Peek
·
#3427
·
|
|
Re: netdata shitshow
No, my point is that what makes something sufficiently cloud-native to be on the landscape may not be totally obvious.
Roger B.A. Klorese
Senior Product Manager
SUSE
705 5th Ave S, Suite 1000
Seattle
No, my point is that what makes something sufficiently cloud-native to be on the landscape may not be totally obvious.
Roger B.A. Klorese
Senior Product Manager
SUSE
705 5th Ave S, Suite 1000
Seattle
|
By
Roger Klorese <roger.klorese@...>
·
#3426
·
|
|
Re: netdata shitshow
Roger are you saying this applies to Netdata too?
Because Netdata is not a virtual appliance...
Roger are you saying this applies to Netdata too?
Because Netdata is not a virtual appliance...
|
By
Costa Tsaousis
·
#3425
·
|
|
Re: netdata shitshow
If I recall correctly, for instance, when Harbor was added, it was a valuable component for cloud-native deployment - but it was not itself cloud-native, since it was delivered as a virtual
If I recall correctly, for instance, when Harbor was added, it was a valuable component for cloud-native deployment - but it was not itself cloud-native, since it was delivered as a virtual
|
By
Roger Klorese <roger.klorese@...>
·
#3424
·
|
|
Re: netdata shitshow
Alexis, thank you for the information.
So, you say that TOC members discussed about Netdata and decided it is not cloud native and should not be invited to CNCF.
Are there any meeting minutes about
Alexis, thank you for the information.
So, you say that TOC members discussed about Netdata and decided it is not cloud native and should not be invited to CNCF.
Are there any meeting minutes about
|
By
Costa Tsaousis
·
#3423
·
|
|
Re: netdata shitshow
Alexis,
Maybe you can help me with this. The CNCF has a Cloud Native definition. A lot of things fit this bill in one way, shape, or form. Far more than are in the landscape. What is missing that the
Alexis,
Maybe you can help me with this. The CNCF has a Cloud Native definition. A lot of things fit this bill in one way, shape, or form. Far more than are in the landscape. What is missing that the
|
By
Matt Farina
·
#3422
·
|
|
Re: netdata shitshow
Josh, please see my reply to Matt which expresses why it is so diminished.
<josh.michielsen@...> wrote:
Josh, please see my reply to Matt which expresses why it is so diminished.
<josh.michielsen@...> wrote:
|
By
alexis richardson
·
#3421
·
|
|
Re: netdata shitshow
I'm well aware you did. Certainly that makes your opinion a valuable one! But again I have to stress being it's founder doesn't mean you can speak for everyone else that finds it valuable. The
I'm well aware you did. Certainly that makes your opinion a valuable one! But again I have to stress being it's founder doesn't mean you can speak for everyone else that finds it valuable. The
|
By
Josh M <josh.michielsen@...>
·
#3420
·
|
|
Re: netdata shitshow
Matt
OK, but:
We are doing a disservice to new users by publishing a "cloud native"
landscape, that contains non-cloud-native projects. If we don't have
an opinion about what is cloud native and
Matt
OK, but:
We are doing a disservice to new users by publishing a "cloud native"
landscape, that contains non-cloud-native projects. If we don't have
an opinion about what is cloud native and
|
By
alexis richardson
·
#3419
·
|
|
Re: netdata shitshow
Josh
I created the landscape, so I feel I have a dog in this race.
a
<josh.michielsen@...> wrote:
Josh
I created the landscape, so I feel I have a dog in this race.
a
<josh.michielsen@...> wrote:
|
By
alexis richardson
·
#3418
·
|
|
Re: netdata shitshow
This comes across as "I don't find it valuable therefore it has no value", which isn't exactly a nuanced opinion. You certainly don't represent my feelings on the topic. Much like how you found
This comes across as "I don't find it valuable therefore it has no value", which isn't exactly a nuanced opinion. You certainly don't represent my feelings on the topic. Much like how you found
|
By
Josh M <josh.michielsen@...>
·
#3417
·
|
|
Re: netdata shitshow
I have to respectfully disagree that it’s meaningless.
Consider the case where someone is new to the space or a category in it. Where does one start to find the options in the space? Search engines
I have to respectfully disagree that it’s meaningless.
Consider the case where someone is new to the space or a category in it. Where does one start to find the options in the space? Search engines
|
By
Matt Farina
·
#3416
·
|
|
Re: netdata shitshow
When we first made the landscape, it (1) had a particular structure
and (2) attempted to show what projects are cloud native and where
they live in that structure.
Now, it has everything in it. So
When we first made the landscape, it (1) had a particular structure
and (2) attempted to show what projects are cloud native and where
they live in that structure.
Now, it has everything in it. So
|
By
alexis richardson
·
#3415
·
|