I’m only reading that’s being “evaluated”:
Can TrueNAS make a competitive, well-featured virtualization function without harnessing/leveraging the work already in Incus? Wouldn’t that be the most efficient path?
I certainly don’t agree that Incus “failed” just because a few people couldn’t migrate old Bhyve VMs to a new platform.
I likely don’t agree that choosing different strategies over time is some big problem either.
“Release Early, Release Often”
“Many Eyeballs Tame Complexity”
It seems like many people here are NOT well adapted to open source methodology and think something can be better managed through hierarchical, authoritarian planning (with, of course, them calling the shots.) However, central planning doesn’t necessarily deliver the order it promises:
"[Conventionally-managed development doesn’t necessarily deliver] …reliable execution by deadline, or on budget, or to all features of the specification; it’s a rare `managed’ project that meets even one of these goals, let alone all three.
– http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ar01s12.html
Much of the “you should have done in this way…”/“I would have done it like this…” gripes here sound more like backseat driving tier bossiness.
Solutions evolve over time. Embrace each new possibility, figure out the puzzle before you, and build something cool with it.
Corral was neat – it had a fresh new UI and probably taught some lessons that went into the apps today.
K3s was cool – I learned about operators and Helm charts, and had AWX running on it for a while, as well as other stuff.
Incus was great – the basics of VM and containers covered in the UI – and tons of API-accessible extra power under the hood was amazing really.
The planned Libvirt LXC will probably have some great potential too.
Focus on Learning, Not Punishment
Celebrate Effort and Progress
Embrace Failure as a Prerequisite for Innovation
Encourage Risk-Taking (Calculated Risks)
Celebrate Experiments (Regardless of Outcome)