Given that's the offering, it doesn't surprise me a bit they didn't go with OpenStack. That said, I guess they think running containers on bare metal is a better way to roll.
It would be, if the docker containers were actually root safe. Currently, youll probably have to rent an entire physical machine to run your containers on, which will be fast, but not necessarily great for packet as they grow.
Openstack really isnt appropriate for this type of scenario, unless their original goal was to use KVM machines to add some extra security / multi-tenancy.
They were looking to use Ironic, which is specifically built for renting entire physical machines. I agree, however, that contributing and working upstream in OpenStack is challenging. I do not doubt that they would find it easier to build new infrastructure than contribute to OpenStack.
OpenStack no longer behaves like a nimble startup and may no longer be the right option for someone looking for a quick, iterative development process. I'd question if any startup should really be a consumer of OpenStack at this point.
Eric, I think that is bit of a leap. If we look back to the mission statement, it still fulfills that role IMO. Ironic is without doubt the immature stepchild, which to me really only makes sense if you wanted to do visualization - but also offer bare metal under the same API.
To put it another way, I question if any startup should be using OpenStack today if OpenStack does not immediately solve the needs that startup expects to solve in the future. That's especially true for DIY. I'm speaking as consumers of OpenStack, of course, not for companies building value on it.
If OpenStack doesn't solve the startup's future needs right now, the startup's future need will come sooner than the features needed in OpenStack. Contributing upstream will have too great an opportunity cost. The only legitimate options for such companies are not to use OpenStack or maintain their own fork.
Right now, at the rate of innovation and improvement currently in OpenStack and the processes necessary for participating in the community, I'd argue that if a startup consuming OpenStack has resources to dedicate toward upstream development and baby-sitting that process, that they're either A) Not a startup, or B) a failing startup.
No startup should be rolling their own cloud, any more than they should be putting together their own Linux kernel. Go public, or if you MUST be on your own metal, use a turnkey solution like Metacloud or Nebula (and let them manage it for you).
Given that's the offering, it doesn't surprise me a bit they didn't go with OpenStack. That said, I guess they think running containers on bare metal is a better way to roll.