Add link to diskless flavor article w/ sidebar link.

[garloff]

More user-facing documentation.
This time just linking an old blog article.
Medium-term we'd obviously want to move it away from scs.community, but that's where it currently is ...

[toothstone]

Ironically the OSBA has not declared any license for the content of scs.community, so I guess we can't just redistribute the article content... Do you happpen to retain rights to it as the author?
Otherwise I would have suggested we copy-paste most of it and just drop some of the very outdated parts referring to pre-Zed/Zed OS tooling.

Interestingly, the issues described for the health monitory sound very similar to the ones I'm encountering for SovereignCloudStack/standards#1010 when I try to run Tempest against a diskless flavor. I think we should continue to look at the real-world usability of SCS - this PR is a good start.

TL;DR: It's fine to merge as it is if we can't overcome the general scs.community migration/licensing issue.

[fkr]

Ironically the OSBA has not declared any license for the content of scs.community, so I guess we can't just redistribute the article content... Do you happpen to retain rights to it as the author? Otherwise I would have suggested we copy-paste most of it and just drop some of the very outdated parts referring to pre-Zed/Zed OS tooling.

Interestingly, the issues described for the health monitory sound very similar to the ones I'm encountering for SovereignCloudStack/standards#1010 when I try to run Tempest against a diskless flavor. I think we should continue to look at the real-world usability of SCS - this PR is a good start.

TL;DR: It's fine to merge as it is if we can't overcome the general scs.community migration/licensing issue.

funky that nobody ever commented that.
The repository of scs.community is MIT licensed: https://github.com/sovereignCloudStack/website

However, the content on the website should be CC-BY-SA, since these considerations hold:

https://docs.scs.community/community/license-considerations

However, since that is not explicitly stated I'd think the license in the repo counts.

(and https://scs.community will vanish within the next weeks anyways and only the repo will stay. The contents of /news (blogs, announcement, press, ...) will be migrated to an archive within the sovereigncloudstack.org site)

[garloff]

The repository of scs.community is MIT licensed: https://github.com/sovereignCloudStack/website

However, the content on the website should be CC-BY-SA, since these considerations hold:

https://docs.scs.community/community/license-considerations

When I was writing articles, I typically did so under CC-BY-SA-4.0.
But we may have failed to document this in some places, my bad.

The MIT license came from the Jekyll framework that was used for scs.community.
If anyone thus uses content under MIT terms, we can not complain ...
I'm not concerned.