linuxcoe-devel

[Linuxcoe-devel] Scope and Requirements

[Shank, J. R. <js...@hp...>]

In this thread I'd like to discuss the scope and requirements of the
Open Source LinuxCOE Project (OSLP). The HP LinuxCOE system requirements
are to provide:

      * Network Installations
      * System Profiles
      * Patch Distribution Waystations and Tools
      * Package Distribution Waystations and Tools

for multiple architectures (i386, ia64, x86_64, hppa) and multiple
distributions (RHEL, Fedora Core, Novell/SuSE, Debian, Ubuntu).

We are also required to provide:

      * Configuration Tools
      * Security Tools
      * Event Detection Tools
      * Backup Tools

How much of the original HP LinuxCOE scope will be part of the Open
Source LinuxCOE Project (OSLP)? Are there any items not on this list
that should be part of OSLP?

Re: [Linuxcoe-devel] Scope and Requirements

[Bryan G. <Bry...@HP...>]

Jeff,

Set #1:
> In this thread I'd like to discuss the scope and requirements of the
> Open Source LinuxCOE Project (OSLP). The HP LinuxCOE system requirements
> are to provide:
> 
>       * Network Installations

Either a distinct item, or included in this is the retrofit ability

>       * System Profiles
>       * Patch Distribution Waystations and Tools
>       * Package Distribution Waystations and Tools
> 
> for multiple architectures (i386, ia64, x86_64, hppa) and multiple
> distributions (RHEL, Fedora Core, Novell/SuSE, Debian, Ubuntu).

Either of these enumerated lists can be expanded over time.  Key
requirement is the "multiple" phrasing.

Set #2:
> We are also required to provide:
> 
>       * Configuration Tools
>       * Security Tools
>       * Event Detection Tools
>       * Backup Tools

Only items 1, 2, and 4 are on the current list.

> How much of the original HP LinuxCOE scope will be part of the Open
> Source LinuxCOE Project (OSLP)? Are there any items not on this list
> that should be part of OSLP?

The minimum is Set #1, and if the current Patch/Package management
toolset is retained/enhanced, Set #2 (or even an expanded version)
is easy to implement and provide.

bryang

> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
> from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles,
> informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to
> speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxcoe-devel mailing list
> Lin...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxcoe-devel

Re: [Linuxcoe-devel] Scope and Requirements

[ed f. <edf...@ya...>]

That's absolutely accurate in my opinion jeff; 
regarding your question about scope between HP-COE
and opensource-COE, i think it should be similar
if not identical.  The implementation will be
different for sure since HP-COE would and could
include proprietary software.  As far as priority
is concerned, the four OSLP deliverables are most
important and should be fleshed out immediately,
the rest of the scope will need to be fleshed out
with technologies as we progress.  

Like Bryang said, LinuxCOE has a standing tradition
to provide a GPL equivalent wherever we might have
chosen a proprietary component.

r,
-craigerl

--- "Shank, Jeffrey R." <js...@hp...> wrote:

> In this thread I'd like to discuss the scope and
> requirements of the
> Open Source LinuxCOE Project (OSLP). The HP LinuxCOE
> system requirements
> are to provide:
> 
>       * Network Installations
>       * System Profiles
>       * Patch Distribution Waystations and Tools
>       * Package Distribution Waystations and Tools
> 
> for multiple architectures (i386, ia64, x86_64,
> hppa) and multiple
> distributions (RHEL, Fedora Core, Novell/SuSE,
> Debian, Ubuntu).
> 
> We are also required to provide:
> 
>       * Configuration Tools
>       * Security Tools
>       * Event Detection Tools
>       * Backup Tools
> 
> How much of the original HP LinuxCOE scope will be
> part of the Open
> Source LinuxCOE Project (OSLP)? Are there any items
> not on this list
> that should be part of OSLP?
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
-------------------------------------------------------
> SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux
> Migration Strategies
> from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps,
> straightforward articles,
> informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you
> need to get up to
> speed, fast.
>
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxcoe-devel mailing list
> Lin...@li...
>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxcoe-devel
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: [Linuxcoe-devel] Scope and Requirements

[Shank, J. R. <js...@hp...>]

On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 10:18 -0700, ed fardos wrote:
> That's absolutely accurate in my opinion jeff; 
> regarding your question about scope between HP-COE
> and opensource-COE, i think it should be similar
> if not identical.

OSLP deliverables are going to be different than the HP LinuxCOE Project
(HPLP) deliverables because HPLP is a service and OSLP is not. That
makes it very difficult to have nearly identical scopes.

> Like Bryang said, LinuxCOE has a standing tradition
> to provide a GPL equivalent wherever we might have
> chosen a proprietary component.

And what exactly does that entail in terms of deliverables? OSLP is not
a service, so I'm not sure what we are providing when you say "a GPL
equivalent...". Do we customize deb/rpm packages for each distribution
and offer those for download?

I'll add a few more comments inline with my original post below, so keep
reading.

> --- "Shank, Jeffrey R." <js...@hp...> wrote:
> 
> > In this thread I'd like to discuss the scope and
> > requirements of the
> > Open Source LinuxCOE Project (OSLP). The HP LinuxCOE
> > system requirements
> > are to provide:
> > 
> >       * Network Installations
> >       * System Profiles

These two items are part of System Designer. As long as SysDes can be
configured to use public mirrors as waystations and a local DBMS for
storing system profiles, these deliverables are easily met in OSLP. The
most important thing to remember is that OSLP is not a service, but
rather the bits so that the user can run the service on their own
machine.

> >       * Patch Distribution Waystations and Tools
> >       * Package Distribution Waystations and Tools

A waystation is just a web/ftp server that offers content mirrored off
of other servers. Anyone can mirror a public distribution, so unless we
have some unique process or scripts that make it easier, this is out of
scope. However, the package/patch management tools that can be
pre-configured by SysDes could be considered in scope as part of the
SysDes deliverable.

> > We are also required to provide:
> > 
> >       * Configuration Tools
> >       * Security Tools
> >       * Event Detection Tools
> >       * Backup Tools

If I understand it correctly, we will provide these tools by means of
selecting existing GPL software and putting a special checkbox on the
SysDes screen under LinuxCOE Bundles. If we didn't offer these things,
users would still be able to select them by simply adding them to
Individual Packages box on Step 4 of SysDes. In other words, our
value-add is that we call them out as system lifecycle management tools.
Do we do more than this? Do we pre-configure them like we do the
package/patch management toolset? If not, this is it just a way to show
off SysDes's "bundle" feature.

Overall, we need to ensure that we do not look at OSLP as a service and
therefore remove service-based deliverables from the scope. We may need
to step back and define OSLP in less grandiose terms. As a service,
LinuxCOE provides provisioning and lifecycle management. As a tool set,
we have to define OSLP in terms of what code we uniquely provide. System
Designer is a huge chunk of that. Is there anything else?