You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> on 2008/12/15 09:01:41 UTC
Geronimo VM-appliance?
I've been playing around with VMWare, trying to optimize my
virtualization configuration, and it occurred to me that folks who are
savvy to the virtualization concept might benefit from having a linux
+openjdk+geronimo appliance ready to "play with" perhaps another which
is "ready for enterprise configuration".
From an Apache POV its another distribution, specific to a
virtualization tool, like VMWare, but users who already have the
required tools installed, can basically download + install + run, and
they have a functional environment...
IMO this is really nice as it drops a ton of evil platform issues (er
ya *F*-windows) but also can resolve issues about which JDK did you
install and did you configure your JAVA_HOME, blah, blah, blah. There
are a ton of problems a newbie might run into when trying to play
around with Geronimo as we all know.
Granted, not everyone is going to have a virtualization environment
setup, but some will I'm sure... probably even the more savvy users I
would guess (and well we can probably give docs to explain how to
setup some virt stuff too if needed). But those who do, we can
deliver them highly functionally images for "playing" or images
tailored for enterprise consumption. That might be one which is bare-
minimum for folks that need a starting point to roll uber-custom
configurations (perhaps with a nice build env setup already for them,
primed with repo artifacts) or one for users that want to deploy
clustered ejb+web applications, and then another for simple web apps.
Seems to me that the advantage here is that you can configure the
server and provide simple admin+user documentation on a known
quantity... that being the VM which we publish for them. That VM
*should* perform *approximately* the same on any non-virtual host
configuration (assuming we craft the image correctly). But, okay I'm
no math genius, but from my perspective... lets say 10x users have a
problem due to config stuff right now, maybe 1-2x might have a problem
with the image (its damn easy to setup a VM-configuration these days,
and also damn easy to install an image).
So, *assuming* that folks are savvy with VM-technology, it might very
well be *easier* to provide a VM image pre-configured for their
evaluation/exploration of Geronimo.
I don't really expect folks to use that image for production, but I
would expect them to learn from then image to build their production
environment, perhaps even copying the configuration from the image as
a bootstrap (and I think we should provide docs on how to do that).
Though for some folks, the image (say the simple webapp image) might
work just fine.
I've seen a lot of mails about system dependent problems... windows
especially, damn I hate that platform... but there are other problems
too. Like folks on Redhat who don't uninstall the crappy GNU java
muck and manually install the sun/ibm JDK, etc. So I'm not just
hating on windows (though you and I both know I really, really,
really... really hate it).
* * *
Bottom line is that I think use of virtual machines is becoming more
popular. I think it would be beneficial to Geronimo if we provided
one (or more) virtual machines images to showcase Geronimo's full
power... and reduce the myriad of complications some initial users run
into why running locally on their own systems. And furthermore, we
can provide more customized images which fully exploit the full power
of the system, without having to go and complicate our build (create
new assemblies, slowing down build/dev times, etc).
After writing all this, I think the only real issue is, since we are
part of Apache and this would technically be considered some sort of
*release* artifact... who does including Linux (whatever distro) jive
with the ASF legally?
I believe its a good idea... obviously or I would not have wasted the
time to try and explain my thoughts to you. But I'm unsure that the
ASF can allow for such things, short of an ASF operating-system coming
into existence (which I'm neither counting on, nor hope happens).
Perhaps a separate sourceforge or code.google project might suite
better for legal issues?
Anyways, seems like a good idea, I'd like to see it happen, its not
that hard... what do you folks think?
--jason
Re: Geronimo VM-appliance?
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@gmail.com>.
Yes I'm definetly going to include full svn, mvn, etc. With a
prepopulated local repo for the developers appliance.
***
Was thinking about calling the effort "GBox". Any thoughts?
--jason
On Dec 16, 2008, at 11:54 AM, "Jack Cai" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If it's for developers, maybe add Maven too.
>
> -Jack
>
> 2008/12/16 Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>
> OS+Java 6+FF3+Server+Samples+Eclipse+GEP would be ideal for
> developers....
>
>
> -Donald
>
>
>
> Jason Dillon wrote:
> Any idea why kinda of images you'd like to see? I'm gonna try and
> craft a simple, base-os+Geronimo image to test out. But I think we
> might want one which has say roller configured perhaps even another
> which can demonstrate AMQ's message distribution over a cluster.
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Dec 15, 2008, at 3:24 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
> I think this is a great idea. I doubt we can host it at apache.....
> unless we do something like bsd + harmony (not even sure if that is
> likely to work)
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Dec 15, 2008, at 12:01 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
> I've been playing around with VMWare, trying to optimize my
> virtualization configuration, and it occurred to me that folks who
> are savvy to the virtualization concept might benefit from having a
> linux+openjdk+geronimo appliance ready to "play with" perhaps
> another which is "ready for enterprise configuration".
>
> From an Apache POV its another distribution, specific to a
> virtualization tool, like VMWare, but users who already have the
> required tools installed, can basically download + install + run,
> and they have a functional environment...
>
> IMO this is really nice as it drops a ton of evil platform issues
> (er ya *F*-windows) but also can resolve issues about which JDK did
> you install and did you configure your JAVA_HOME, blah, blah, blah.
> There are a ton of problems a newbie might run into when trying to
> play around with Geronimo as we all know.
>
> Granted, not everyone is going to have a virtualization environment
> setup, but some will I'm sure... probably even the more savvy users
> I would guess (and well we can probably give docs to explain how to
> setup some virt stuff too if needed). But those who do, we can
> deliver them highly functionally images for "playing" or images
> tailored for enterprise consumption. That might be one which is
> bare-minimum for folks that need a starting point to roll uber-
> custom configurations (perhaps with a nice build env setup already
> for them, primed with repo artifacts) or one for users that want to
> deploy clustered ejb+web applications, and then another for simple
> web apps.
>
> Seems to me that the advantage here is that you can configure the
> server and provide simple admin+user documentation on a known
> quantity... that being the VM which we publish for them. That VM
> *should* perform *approximately* the same on any non-virtual host
> configuration (assuming we craft the image correctly). But, okay
> I'm no math genius, but from my perspective... lets say 10x users
> have a problem due to config stuff right now, maybe 1-2x might have
> a problem with the image (its damn easy to setup a VM-configuration
> these days, and also damn easy to install an image).
>
> So, *assuming* that folks are savvy with VM-technology, it might
> very well be *easier* to provide a VM image pre-configured for their
> evaluation/exploration of Geronimo.
>
> I don't really expect folks to use that image for production, but I
> would expect them to learn from then image to build their production
> environment, perhaps even copying the configuration from the image
> as a bootstrap (and I think we should provide docs on how to do
> that). Though for some folks, the image (say the simple webapp
> image) might work just fine.
>
> I've seen a lot of mails about system dependent problems... windows
> especially, damn I hate that platform... but there are other
> problems too. Like folks on Redhat who don't uninstall the crappy
> GNU java muck and manually install the sun/ibm JDK, etc. So I'm not
> just hating on windows (though you and I both know I really, really,
> really... really hate it).
>
> * * *
>
> Bottom line is that I think use of virtual machines is becoming more
> popular. I think it would be beneficial to Geronimo if we provided
> one (or more) virtual machines images to showcase Geronimo's full
> power... and reduce the myriad of complications some initial users
> run into why running locally on their own systems. And furthermore,
> we can provide more customized images which fully exploit the full
> power of the system, without having to go and complicate our build
> (create new assemblies, slowing down build/dev times, etc).
>
> After writing all this, I think the only real issue is, since we are
> part of Apache and this would technically be considered some sort
> of *release* artifact... who does including Linux (whatever distro)
> jive with the ASF legally?
>
> I believe its a good idea... obviously or I would not have wasted
> the time to try and explain my thoughts to you. But I'm unsure that
> the ASF can allow for such things, short of an ASF operating-system
> coming into existence (which I'm neither counting on, nor hope
> happens). Perhaps a separate sourceforge or code.google project
> might suite better for legal issues?
>
> Anyways, seems like a good idea, I'd like to see it happen, its not
> that hard... what do you folks think?
>
> --jason
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Geronimo VM-appliance?
Posted by Jack Cai <gr...@gmail.com>.
If it's for developers, maybe add Maven too.
-Jack
2008/12/16 Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>
> OS+Java 6+FF3+Server+Samples+Eclipse+GEP would be ideal for developers....
>
>
> -Donald
>
>
>
> Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> Any idea why kinda of images you'd like to see? I'm gonna try and craft a
>> simple, base-os+Geronimo image to test out. But I think we might want one
>> which has say roller configured perhaps even another which can demonstrate
>> AMQ's message distribution over a cluster.
>>
>> --jason
>>
>>
>> On Dec 15, 2008, at 3:24 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>
>> I think this is a great idea. I doubt we can host it at apache.....
>>> unless we do something like bsd + harmony (not even sure if that is likely
>>> to work)
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>> On Dec 15, 2008, at 12:01 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>
>>> I've been playing around with VMWare, trying to optimize my
>>>> virtualization configuration, and it occurred to me that folks who are savvy
>>>> to the virtualization concept might benefit from having a
>>>> linux+openjdk+geronimo appliance ready to "play with" perhaps another which
>>>> is "ready for enterprise configuration".
>>>>
>>>> From an Apache POV its another distribution, specific to a
>>>> virtualization tool, like VMWare, but users who already have the required
>>>> tools installed, can basically download + install + run, and they have a
>>>> functional environment...
>>>>
>>>> IMO this is really nice as it drops a ton of evil platform issues (er ya
>>>> *F*-windows) but also can resolve issues about which JDK did you install and
>>>> did you configure your JAVA_HOME, blah, blah, blah. There are a ton of
>>>> problems a newbie might run into when trying to play around with Geronimo as
>>>> we all know.
>>>>
>>>> Granted, not everyone is going to have a virtualization environment
>>>> setup, but some will I'm sure... probably even the more savvy users I would
>>>> guess (and well we can probably give docs to explain how to setup some virt
>>>> stuff too if needed). But those who do, we can deliver them highly
>>>> functionally images for "playing" or images tailored for enterprise
>>>> consumption. That might be one which is bare-minimum for folks that need a
>>>> starting point to roll uber-custom configurations (perhaps with a nice build
>>>> env setup already for them, primed with repo artifacts) or one for users
>>>> that want to deploy clustered ejb+web applications, and then another for
>>>> simple web apps.
>>>>
>>>> Seems to me that the advantage here is that you can configure the server
>>>> and provide simple admin+user documentation on a known quantity... that
>>>> being the VM which we publish for them. That VM *should* perform
>>>> *approximately* the same on any non-virtual host configuration (assuming we
>>>> craft the image correctly). But, okay I'm no math genius, but from my
>>>> perspective... lets say 10x users have a problem due to config stuff right
>>>> now, maybe 1-2x might have a problem with the image (its damn easy to setup
>>>> a VM-configuration these days, and also damn easy to install an image).
>>>>
>>>> So, *assuming* that folks are savvy with VM-technology, it might very
>>>> well be *easier* to provide a VM image pre-configured for their
>>>> evaluation/exploration of Geronimo.
>>>>
>>>> I don't really expect folks to use that image for production, but I
>>>> would expect them to learn from then image to build their production
>>>> environment, perhaps even copying the configuration from the image as a
>>>> bootstrap (and I think we should provide docs on how to do that). Though
>>>> for some folks, the image (say the simple webapp image) might work just
>>>> fine.
>>>>
>>>> I've seen a lot of mails about system dependent problems... windows
>>>> especially, damn I hate that platform... but there are other problems too.
>>>> Like folks on Redhat who don't uninstall the crappy GNU java muck and
>>>> manually install the sun/ibm JDK, etc. So I'm not just hating on windows
>>>> (though you and I both know I really, really, really... really hate it).
>>>>
>>>> * * *
>>>>
>>>> Bottom line is that I think use of virtual machines is becoming more
>>>> popular. I think it would be beneficial to Geronimo if we provided one (or
>>>> more) virtual machines images to showcase Geronimo's full power... and
>>>> reduce the myriad of complications some initial users run into why running
>>>> locally on their own systems. And furthermore, we can provide more
>>>> customized images which fully exploit the full power of the system, without
>>>> having to go and complicate our build (create new assemblies, slowing down
>>>> build/dev times, etc).
>>>>
>>>> After writing all this, I think the only real issue is, since we are
>>>> part of Apache and this would technically be considered some sort of
>>>> *release* artifact... who does including Linux (whatever distro) jive with
>>>> the ASF legally?
>>>>
>>>> I believe its a good idea... obviously or I would not have wasted the
>>>> time to try and explain my thoughts to you. But I'm unsure that the ASF can
>>>> allow for such things, short of an ASF operating-system coming into
>>>> existence (which I'm neither counting on, nor hope happens). Perhaps a
>>>> separate sourceforge or code.google project might suite better for legal
>>>> issues?
>>>>
>>>> Anyways, seems like a good idea, I'd like to see it happen, its not that
>>>> hard... what do you folks think?
>>>>
>>>> --jason
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
Re: Geronimo VM-appliance?
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
OS+Java 6+FF3+Server+Samples+Eclipse+GEP would be ideal for developers....
-Donald
Jason Dillon wrote:
> Any idea why kinda of images you'd like to see? I'm gonna try and craft
> a simple, base-os+Geronimo image to test out. But I think we might want
> one which has say roller configured perhaps even another which can
> demonstrate AMQ's message distribution over a cluster.
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Dec 15, 2008, at 3:24 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>> I think this is a great idea. I doubt we can host it at apache.....
>> unless we do something like bsd + harmony (not even sure if that is
>> likely to work)
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>> On Dec 15, 2008, at 12:01 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>
>>> I've been playing around with VMWare, trying to optimize my
>>> virtualization configuration, and it occurred to me that folks who
>>> are savvy to the virtualization concept might benefit from having a
>>> linux+openjdk+geronimo appliance ready to "play with" perhaps another
>>> which is "ready for enterprise configuration".
>>>
>>> From an Apache POV its another distribution, specific to a
>>> virtualization tool, like VMWare, but users who already have the
>>> required tools installed, can basically download + install + run, and
>>> they have a functional environment...
>>>
>>> IMO this is really nice as it drops a ton of evil platform issues (er
>>> ya *F*-windows) but also can resolve issues about which JDK did you
>>> install and did you configure your JAVA_HOME, blah, blah, blah.
>>> There are a ton of problems a newbie might run into when trying to
>>> play around with Geronimo as we all know.
>>>
>>> Granted, not everyone is going to have a virtualization environment
>>> setup, but some will I'm sure... probably even the more savvy users I
>>> would guess (and well we can probably give docs to explain how to
>>> setup some virt stuff too if needed). But those who do, we can
>>> deliver them highly functionally images for "playing" or images
>>> tailored for enterprise consumption. That might be one which is
>>> bare-minimum for folks that need a starting point to roll uber-custom
>>> configurations (perhaps with a nice build env setup already for them,
>>> primed with repo artifacts) or one for users that want to deploy
>>> clustered ejb+web applications, and then another for simple web apps.
>>>
>>> Seems to me that the advantage here is that you can configure the
>>> server and provide simple admin+user documentation on a known
>>> quantity... that being the VM which we publish for them. That VM
>>> *should* perform *approximately* the same on any non-virtual host
>>> configuration (assuming we craft the image correctly). But, okay I'm
>>> no math genius, but from my perspective... lets say 10x users have a
>>> problem due to config stuff right now, maybe 1-2x might have a
>>> problem with the image (its damn easy to setup a VM-configuration
>>> these days, and also damn easy to install an image).
>>>
>>> So, *assuming* that folks are savvy with VM-technology, it might very
>>> well be *easier* to provide a VM image pre-configured for their
>>> evaluation/exploration of Geronimo.
>>>
>>> I don't really expect folks to use that image for production, but I
>>> would expect them to learn from then image to build their production
>>> environment, perhaps even copying the configuration from the image as
>>> a bootstrap (and I think we should provide docs on how to do that).
>>> Though for some folks, the image (say the simple webapp image) might
>>> work just fine.
>>>
>>> I've seen a lot of mails about system dependent problems... windows
>>> especially, damn I hate that platform... but there are other problems
>>> too. Like folks on Redhat who don't uninstall the crappy GNU java
>>> muck and manually install the sun/ibm JDK, etc. So I'm not just
>>> hating on windows (though you and I both know I really, really,
>>> really... really hate it).
>>>
>>> * * *
>>>
>>> Bottom line is that I think use of virtual machines is becoming more
>>> popular. I think it would be beneficial to Geronimo if we provided
>>> one (or more) virtual machines images to showcase Geronimo's full
>>> power... and reduce the myriad of complications some initial users
>>> run into why running locally on their own systems. And furthermore,
>>> we can provide more customized images which fully exploit the full
>>> power of the system, without having to go and complicate our build
>>> (create new assemblies, slowing down build/dev times, etc).
>>>
>>> After writing all this, I think the only real issue is, since we are
>>> part of Apache and this would technically be considered some sort of
>>> *release* artifact... who does including Linux (whatever distro) jive
>>> with the ASF legally?
>>>
>>> I believe its a good idea... obviously or I would not have wasted the
>>> time to try and explain my thoughts to you. But I'm unsure that the
>>> ASF can allow for such things, short of an ASF operating-system
>>> coming into existence (which I'm neither counting on, nor hope
>>> happens). Perhaps a separate sourceforge or code.google project
>>> might suite better for legal issues?
>>>
>>> Anyways, seems like a good idea, I'd like to see it happen, its not
>>> that hard... what do you folks think?
>>>
>>> --jason
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: Geronimo VM-appliance?
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
Any idea why kinda of images you'd like to see? I'm gonna try and
craft a simple, base-os+Geronimo image to test out. But I think we
might want one which has say roller configured perhaps even another
which can demonstrate AMQ's message distribution over a cluster.
--jason
On Dec 15, 2008, at 3:24 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> I think this is a great idea. I doubt we can host it at apache.....
> unless we do something like bsd + harmony (not even sure if that is
> likely to work)
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Dec 15, 2008, at 12:01 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> I've been playing around with VMWare, trying to optimize my
>> virtualization configuration, and it occurred to me that folks who
>> are savvy to the virtualization concept might benefit from having a
>> linux+openjdk+geronimo appliance ready to "play with" perhaps
>> another which is "ready for enterprise configuration".
>>
>> From an Apache POV its another distribution, specific to a
>> virtualization tool, like VMWare, but users who already have the
>> required tools installed, can basically download + install + run,
>> and they have a functional environment...
>>
>> IMO this is really nice as it drops a ton of evil platform issues
>> (er ya *F*-windows) but also can resolve issues about which JDK did
>> you install and did you configure your JAVA_HOME, blah, blah,
>> blah. There are a ton of problems a newbie might run into when
>> trying to play around with Geronimo as we all know.
>>
>> Granted, not everyone is going to have a virtualization environment
>> setup, but some will I'm sure... probably even the more savvy users
>> I would guess (and well we can probably give docs to explain how to
>> setup some virt stuff too if needed). But those who do, we can
>> deliver them highly functionally images for "playing" or images
>> tailored for enterprise consumption. That might be one which is
>> bare-minimum for folks that need a starting point to roll uber-
>> custom configurations (perhaps with a nice build env setup already
>> for them, primed with repo artifacts) or one for users that want to
>> deploy clustered ejb+web applications, and then another for simple
>> web apps.
>>
>> Seems to me that the advantage here is that you can configure the
>> server and provide simple admin+user documentation on a known
>> quantity... that being the VM which we publish for them. That VM
>> *should* perform *approximately* the same on any non-virtual host
>> configuration (assuming we craft the image correctly). But, okay
>> I'm no math genius, but from my perspective... lets say 10x users
>> have a problem due to config stuff right now, maybe 1-2x might have
>> a problem with the image (its damn easy to setup a VM-configuration
>> these days, and also damn easy to install an image).
>>
>> So, *assuming* that folks are savvy with VM-technology, it might
>> very well be *easier* to provide a VM image pre-configured for
>> their evaluation/exploration of Geronimo.
>>
>> I don't really expect folks to use that image for production, but I
>> would expect them to learn from then image to build their
>> production environment, perhaps even copying the configuration from
>> the image as a bootstrap (and I think we should provide docs on how
>> to do that). Though for some folks, the image (say the simple
>> webapp image) might work just fine.
>>
>> I've seen a lot of mails about system dependent problems... windows
>> especially, damn I hate that platform... but there are other
>> problems too. Like folks on Redhat who don't uninstall the crappy
>> GNU java muck and manually install the sun/ibm JDK, etc. So I'm
>> not just hating on windows (though you and I both know I really,
>> really, really... really hate it).
>>
>> * * *
>>
>> Bottom line is that I think use of virtual machines is becoming
>> more popular. I think it would be beneficial to Geronimo if we
>> provided one (or more) virtual machines images to showcase
>> Geronimo's full power... and reduce the myriad of complications
>> some initial users run into why running locally on their own
>> systems. And furthermore, we can provide more customized images
>> which fully exploit the full power of the system, without having to
>> go and complicate our build (create new assemblies, slowing down
>> build/dev times, etc).
>>
>> After writing all this, I think the only real issue is, since we
>> are part of Apache and this would technically be considered some
>> sort of *release* artifact... who does including Linux (whatever
>> distro) jive with the ASF legally?
>>
>> I believe its a good idea... obviously or I would not have wasted
>> the time to try and explain my thoughts to you. But I'm unsure
>> that the ASF can allow for such things, short of an ASF operating-
>> system coming into existence (which I'm neither counting on, nor
>> hope happens). Perhaps a separate sourceforge or code.google
>> project might suite better for legal issues?
>>
>> Anyways, seems like a good idea, I'd like to see it happen, its not
>> that hard... what do you folks think?
>>
>> --jason
>>
>>
>
Re: Geronimo VM-appliance?
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Dec 15, 2008, at 3:45 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> On Dec 15, 2008, at 3:24 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>> I think this is a great idea. I doubt we can host it at
>> apache..... unless we do something like bsd + harmony (not even
>> sure if that is likely to work)
>
> Thats what I've been realizing... But can we link to it/documented
> it from apache?
I don't see why not...
We could not release any non-ASF compatibly licensed binaries (e.g.
(L)GPL) from Apache. However, this does not prevent us from providing
build/configuration support for such an appliance. We could provide
instructions on how to obtain incompatible licensed artifacts. Just
need to make sure that users understand that their actions may have
potential licensing implications.
If the *only* realization of this work requires the presence of (L)GPL
artifacts, then, IIUC, it might need to be hosted outside of Apache.
This would require some analysis on our part as well as a review on
legal-discuss@.
Regardless, assuming the work is useful to Geronimo users, I'd think
we'd want to let Geronimo users know about it. We'd do this for any
other Geronimo-related works, also... So, I don't see an issue with
linking to and describing the project. "Documenting" the project might
be another issue...
--kevan
Re: Geronimo VM-appliance?
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
On Dec 15, 2008, at 3:24 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> I think this is a great idea. I doubt we can host it at apache.....
> unless we do something like bsd + harmony (not even sure if that is
> likely to work)
Thats what I've been realizing... But can we link to it/documented it
from apache?
--jason
Re: Geronimo VM-appliance?
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
I think this is a great idea. I doubt we can host it at apache.....
unless we do something like bsd + harmony (not even sure if that is
likely to work)
thanks
david jencks
On Dec 15, 2008, at 12:01 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> I've been playing around with VMWare, trying to optimize my
> virtualization configuration, and it occurred to me that folks who
> are savvy to the virtualization concept might benefit from having a
> linux+openjdk+geronimo appliance ready to "play with" perhaps
> another which is "ready for enterprise configuration".
>
> From an Apache POV its another distribution, specific to a
> virtualization tool, like VMWare, but users who already have the
> required tools installed, can basically download + install + run,
> and they have a functional environment...
>
> IMO this is really nice as it drops a ton of evil platform issues
> (er ya *F*-windows) but also can resolve issues about which JDK did
> you install and did you configure your JAVA_HOME, blah, blah, blah.
> There are a ton of problems a newbie might run into when trying to
> play around with Geronimo as we all know.
>
> Granted, not everyone is going to have a virtualization environment
> setup, but some will I'm sure... probably even the more savvy users
> I would guess (and well we can probably give docs to explain how to
> setup some virt stuff too if needed). But those who do, we can
> deliver them highly functionally images for "playing" or images
> tailored for enterprise consumption. That might be one which is
> bare-minimum for folks that need a starting point to roll uber-
> custom configurations (perhaps with a nice build env setup already
> for them, primed with repo artifacts) or one for users that want to
> deploy clustered ejb+web applications, and then another for simple
> web apps.
>
> Seems to me that the advantage here is that you can configure the
> server and provide simple admin+user documentation on a known
> quantity... that being the VM which we publish for them. That VM
> *should* perform *approximately* the same on any non-virtual host
> configuration (assuming we craft the image correctly). But, okay
> I'm no math genius, but from my perspective... lets say 10x users
> have a problem due to config stuff right now, maybe 1-2x might have
> a problem with the image (its damn easy to setup a VM-configuration
> these days, and also damn easy to install an image).
>
> So, *assuming* that folks are savvy with VM-technology, it might
> very well be *easier* to provide a VM image pre-configured for their
> evaluation/exploration of Geronimo.
>
> I don't really expect folks to use that image for production, but I
> would expect them to learn from then image to build their production
> environment, perhaps even copying the configuration from the image
> as a bootstrap (and I think we should provide docs on how to do
> that). Though for some folks, the image (say the simple webapp
> image) might work just fine.
>
> I've seen a lot of mails about system dependent problems... windows
> especially, damn I hate that platform... but there are other
> problems too. Like folks on Redhat who don't uninstall the crappy
> GNU java muck and manually install the sun/ibm JDK, etc. So I'm not
> just hating on windows (though you and I both know I really, really,
> really... really hate it).
>
> * * *
>
> Bottom line is that I think use of virtual machines is becoming more
> popular. I think it would be beneficial to Geronimo if we provided
> one (or more) virtual machines images to showcase Geronimo's full
> power... and reduce the myriad of complications some initial users
> run into why running locally on their own systems. And furthermore,
> we can provide more customized images which fully exploit the full
> power of the system, without having to go and complicate our build
> (create new assemblies, slowing down build/dev times, etc).
>
> After writing all this, I think the only real issue is, since we are
> part of Apache and this would technically be considered some sort
> of *release* artifact... who does including Linux (whatever distro)
> jive with the ASF legally?
>
> I believe its a good idea... obviously or I would not have wasted
> the time to try and explain my thoughts to you. But I'm unsure that
> the ASF can allow for such things, short of an ASF operating-system
> coming into existence (which I'm neither counting on, nor hope
> happens). Perhaps a separate sourceforge or code.google project
> might suite better for legal issues?
>
> Anyways, seems like a good idea, I'd like to see it happen, its not
> that hard... what do you folks think?
>
> --jason
>
>