>> theCUBE's live coverage is made possible by funding from Dell Technologies: "Creating technologies that drive human progress." >> Good late afternoon from Barcelona, Spain at the Theater of Barcelona. It's Lisa Martin and Dave Nicholson of "theCUBE" covering MWC23. This is our third day of continuous wall-to-wall coverage on theCUBE. And you know we're going to be here tomorrow as well. We've been having some amazing conversations about the ecosystem. And we're going to continue those conversations next. Honore Labourdette is here, the VP global partner, Ecosystem Success Team, Telco Media and Entertainment at Red Hat. And Tony Jeffries joins us as well, a Senior Director of Product Management, Telecom Systems Business at Dell. Welcome to the theCUBE. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Great to have both of you here. So we're going to be talking about the evolution of the telecom stack. We've been talking a lot about disaggregation the last couple of days. Honore, starting with you, talk about the evolution of the telecom stock. You were saying before we went live this is your 15th at least MWC. So you've seen a lot of evolution, but what are some of the things you're seeing right now? >> Well, I think the interesting thing about disaggregation, which is a key topic, right? 'Cause it's so relative to 5G and the 5G core and the benefits and the features of 5G core around disaggregation. But one thing we have to remember, when you disaggregate, you separate things. You have to bring those things back together again in a different way. And that's predominantly what we're doing in our partnership with Dell, is we're bringing those disaggregated components back together in a cohesive way that takes advantage of the new technology, at the same time taking out the complexity and making it easier for our Telco customers to deploy and to scale and to get much more, accelerate the time to revenue. So the trend now is, what we're seeing is two things I would say. One is how do we solve for the complexity with the disaggregation? And how do we leverage the ecosystem as a partner in order to help solve for some of those challenges? >> Tony, jump on in, talk about what you guys announced last week, Dell and Red Hat, and how it's addressing the complexities that Honore was saying, "Hey, they're there." >> Yeah. You know, our customers, our operators are saying, "Hey, I want disaggregation." "I want competition in the market." But at the same time who's going to support all this disaggregation, right? And so at the end of the day, there's going to be an operator that's going to have to figure this out. They're going to have an SLA that they're going to have to meet. And so they're going to want to go with a best-in-class partner with Red Hat and Dell, in terms of our infrastructure and their software together as one combined engineered system. And that's what we call a Dell Telecom infrastructure block for Red Hat. And so at the end of the day, things may go wrong, and if they do, who are they going to call for that support? And that's also really a key element of an engineered system, is this experience that they get both with Red Hat and with Dell together supporting the customer as one. Which is really important to solve this disaggregated problem that can arise from a disaggregated open network situation, yeah. >> So what is the market, the go to market motion look like? People have loyalties in the IT space to technologies that they've embraced and been successful with for years and years. So you have folks in the marketplace who are diehard, you know, dyed red, Red Hat folks. Is it primarily a pull from them? How does that work? How do you approach that to your, what are your end user joint customers? What does that look like from your perspective? >> Sure, well, interestingly enough both Red Hat and Dell have been in the marketplace for a very long time, right? So we do have the brand with those Telco customers for these solutions. What we're seeing with this solution is, it's an emerging market. It's an emerging market for a new technology. So there's an opportunity for both Red Hat and Dell together to leverage our brands with those customers with no friction in the marketplace as we go to market together. So our field sales teams will be motivated to, you know, take advantage of the solution for their customers, as will the Dell team. And I'll let Tony speak to the Dell, go to market. >> Yeah. You know, so we really co-sell together, right? We're the key partners. Dell will end up fulfilling that order, right? We send these engineered systems through our factories and we send that out either directly to a customer or to a OTEL lab, like an intermediate lab where we can further refine and customize that offer for that particular customer. And so we got a lot of options there, but we're essentially co-selling. And Dell is fulfilling that from an infrastructure perspective, putting Red Hat software on top and the licensing for that support. So it's a really good mix. >> And I think, if I may, one of the key differentiators is the actual capabilities that we're bringing together inside of this pre-integrated solution. So it includes the Red Hat OpenShift which is the container software, but we also add our advanced cluster management as well as our Ansible automation. And then Dell adds their orchestration capability along with the features and functionalities of the platform. And we put that together and we offer capability, remote automation orchestration and management capabilities that again reduces the operating expense, reduces the complexity, allows for easy scale. So it's, you know, certainly it's all about the partnership but it's also the capabilities of the combined technology. >> I was just going to ask about some of the numbers, and you mentioned some of them. Reduction of TCO I imagine is also a big capability that this solution enables besides reducing OpEx. Talk about the TCO reduction. 'Cause I know there's some numbers there that Dell and Red Hat have already delivered to the market. >> Yeah. You know, so these infrastructure blocks are designed specifically for Core, or for RAN, or for the Edge. We're starting out initially in the Core, but we've done some market research with a company called ACG. And ACG has looked at day zero, day one and day two TCO, FTE hours saved. And we're looking at over 40 to 50% TCO savings over you know, five year period, which is quite significant in terms of cost savings at a TCO level. But also we have a lot of numbers around power consumption and savings around power consumption. But also just that experience for our operator that says, hey, I'm going to go to one company to get the best in class from Red Hat and Dell together. That saves a lot of time in procurement and that entire ordering process as well. So you get a lot of savings that aren't exactly seen in the FTE hours around TCO, but just in that overall experience by talking to one company to get the best of both from both Red Hat and Dell together. >> I think the comic book character Charlie Brown once said, "The most discouraging thing in the world is having a lot of potential." (laughing) >> Right. >> And so when we talk about disaggregating and then reaggregating or reintegrating, that means choice. >> Tony: Yeah. >> How does an operator approach making that choice? Because, yeah, it sounds great. We have this integration lab and you have all these choices. Well, how do I decide, how does a person decide? This is a question for Honore from a Red Hat perspective, what's the secret sauce that you believe differentiates the Red Hat-infused stack versus some other assemblage of gear? >> Well, there's a couple of key characteristics, and the one that I think is most prevalent is that we're open, right? So "open" is in Red Hat's DNA because we're an open source technology company, and with that open source technology and that open platform, our customers can now add workloads. They have options to choose the workloads that they want to run on that open source platform. As they choose those workloads, they can be confident that those workloads have been certified and validated on our platform because we have a very robust ecosystem of ISVs that have already completed that process with open source, with Red Hat OpenShift. So then we take the Red Hat OpenShift and we put it on the Dell platform, which is market leader platform, right? Combine those two things, the customers can be confident that they can put those workloads on the combined platform that we're offering and that those workloads would run. So again, it goes back to making it simpler, making it easy to procure, easy to run workloads, easy to deploy, easy to operate. And all of that of course equates to saving time always equates to saving money. >> Yeah. Absolutely. >> Oh, I thought you wanted to continue. >> No, I think Honore sort of, she nailed it. You know, Red Hat is so dominant in 5G, and what they're doing in the market, especially in the Core and where we're going into the RAN, you know, next steps are to validate those workloads, those workload vendors on top of a stack. And the Red Hat leader in the Core is key, right? It's instant credibility in the core market. And so that's one of the reasons why we, Dell, want to partner with with Red Hat for the core market and beyond. We're going to be looking at not only Core but moving into RAN very soon. But then we do, we take that validated workload on top of that to optimize that workload and then be able to instantiate that in the core and the RAN. It's just a really streamlined, good experience for our operators. At the end of the day, we want happy customers in between our mutual customer base. And that's what you get whenever you do that combined stack together. >> Were operators, any operators, and you don't have to mention them by name, involved in the evolution of the infra blocks? I'm just curious how involved they were in helping to co-develop this. I imagine they were to some degree. >> Yeah, I could take that one. So, in doing so, yeah, we can't be myopic and just assume that we nailed it the first time, right? So yeah, we do work with partners all the way up and down the stack. A lot of our engineering work with Red Hat also brings in customer experience that is key to ensure that you're building and designing the right architecture for the Core. I would like to use the names, I don't know if I should, but a lot of those names are big names that are leaders in our industry. But yeah, their footprints, their fingerprints are all over those design best practices, those architectural designs that we build together. And then we further that by doing those validated workloads on top of that. So just to really prove the point that it's optimized for the Core, RAN, Edge kind of workload. >> And it's a huge added value for Red Hat to have a partner like Dell who can take all of those components, take the workload, take the Red Hat software, put it on the platform, and deliver that out to the customers. That's really, you know, a key part of the partnership and the value of the partnership because nobody really does that better than Dell. That center of excellence around delivery and support. >> Can you share any feedback from any of those nameless operators in terms of... I'm even kind of wondering what the catalyst was for the infra block. Was it operators saying, "Ah, we have these challenges here"? Was it the evolution of the Telco stack and Dell said, "We can come in with Red Hat and solve this problem"? And what's been some of their feedback? >> Yeah, it really comes down to what Honore said about, okay, you know, when we are looking at day zero, which is primarily your design, how much time savings can we do by creating that stack for them, right? We have industry experts designing that Core stack that's optimized for different levels of spectrum. When we do that we save a lot of time in terms of FTE hours for our architects, our operators, and then it goes into day one, right? Which is the deployment aspect for saving tons of hours for our operators by being able to deploy this. Speed to market is key. That ultimately ends up in, you know, faster time to revenue for our customers, right? So it's, when they see that we've already done the pre-work that they don't have to, that's what really resonates for them in terms of that, yeah. >> Honore, Lisa and I happen to be veterans of the Cloud native space, and what we heard from a lot of the folks in that ecosystem is that there is a massive hunger for developers to be able to deploy and manage and orchestrate environments that consist of Cloud native application infrastructure, microservices. >> Right. >> What we've heard here is that 5G equals Cloud native application stacks. Is that a fair assessment of the environment? And what are you seeing from a supply and demand for that kind of labor perspective? Is there still a hunger for those folks who develop in that space? >> Well, there is, because the very nature of an open source, Kubernetes-based container platform, which is what OpenShift is, the very nature of it is to open up that code so that developers can have access to the code to develop the workloads to the platform, right? And so, again, the combination of bringing together the Dell infrastructure with the Red Hat software, it doesn't change anything. The developer, the development community still has access to that same container platform to develop to, you know, Cloud native types of application. And you know, OpenShift is Red Hat's hybrid Cloud platform. So it runs on-prem, it runs in the public Cloud, it runs at the edge, it runs at the far edge. So any of the development community that's trying to develop Cloud native applications can develop it on this platform as they would if they were developing on an OpenShift platform in the public Cloud. >> So in "The Graduate", the advice to the graduate was, "Plastics." Plastics. As someone who has more children than I can remember, I forget how many kids I have. >> Four. >> That's right, I have four. That's right. (laughing) Three in college and grad school already at this point. Cloud native, I don't know. Kubernetes definitely a field that's going to, it's got some legs? >> Yes. >> Okay. So I can get 'em off my payroll quickly. >> Honore: Yes, yes. (laughing) >> Okay, good to know. Good to know. Any thoughts on that open Cloud native world? >> You know, there's so many changes that's going to happen in Kubernetes and services that you got to be able to update quickly. CICD, obviously the topic is huge. How quickly can we keep these systems up to date with new releases, changes? That's a great thing about an engineered system is that we do provide that lifecycle management for three to five years through this engagement with our customers. So we're constantly keeping them up with the latest and the greatest. >> David: Well do those customers have that expertise in-house, though? Do they have that now? Or is this a seismic cultural shift in those environments? >> Well, you know, they do have a lot of that experience, but it takes a lot of that time, and we're taking that off of their plate and putting that within us on our system, within our engineered system, and doing that automatically for them. And so they don't have to check in and try to understand what the release certification matrix is. Every quarter we're providing that to them. We're communicating out to the operator, telling them what's coming up latest and greatest, not only in terms of the software but the hardware and how to optimize it all together. That's the beauty of these systems. These are five year relationships with our operators that we're providing that lifecycle management end to end, for years to come. >> Lisa: So last question. You talked about joint GTM availability. When can operators get their hands on this? >> Yes. Yes. It's currently slated for early September release. >> Lisa: Awesome. So sometime this year? >> Yes. >> Well guys, thank you so much for talking with us today about Dell, Red Hat, what you're doing to really help evolve the telecom stack. We appreciate it. Next time come back with a customer, we can dig into it. That'd be fun. >> We sure will, absolutely. That may happen today actually, a little bit later. Not to let the cat out the bag, but good news. >> All right, well, geez, you're going to want to stick around. Thank you so much for your time. For our guests and for Dave Nicholson. This is Lisa Martin of theCUBE at MWC23 from Barcelona, Spain. We'll be back after a short break. (calm music)

(techno music intro) >> Welcome back to theCube's coverage of SuperComputing Conference 2022. We are here at day three covering the amazing events that are occurring here. I'm Dave Nicholson, with my co-host Paul Gillin. How's it goin', Paul? >> Fine, Dave. Winding down here, but still plenty of action. >> Interesting stuff. We got a full day of coverage, and we're having really, really interesting conversations. We sort of wrapped things up at Supercomputing 22 here in Dallas. I've got two very special guests with me, Scott from Intel and David from Dell, to talk about yeah supercomputing, but guess what? We've got some really cool stuff coming up after this whole thing wraps. So not all of the holiday gifts have been unwrapped yet, kids. Welcome gentlemen. >> Thanks so much for having us. >> Thanks for having us. >> So, let's start with you, David. First of all, explain the relationship in general between Dell and Intel. >> Sure, so obviously Intel's been an outstanding partner. We built some great solutions over the years. I think the market reflects that. Our customers tell us that. The feedback's strong. The products you see out here this week at Supercompute, you know, put that on display for everybody to see. And then as we think about AI in machine learning, there's so many different directions we need to go to help our customers deliver AI outcomes. Right, so we recognize that AI has kind of spread outside of just the confines of everything we've seen here this week. And now we've got really accessible AI use cases that we can explain to friends and family. We can talk about going into retail environments and how AI is being used to track inventory, to monitor traffic, et cetera. But really what that means to us as a bunch of hardware folks is we have to deliver the right platforms and the right designs for a variety of environments, both inside and outside the data center. And so if you look at our portfolio, we have some great products here this week, but we also have other platforms, like the XR4000, our shortest rack server ever that's designed to go into Edge environments, but is also built for those Edge AI use cases that supports GPUs. It supports AI on the CPU as well. And so there's a lot of really compelling platforms that we're starting to talk about, have already been talking about, and it's going to really enable our customers to deliver AI in a variety of ways. >> You mentioned AI on the CPU. Maybe this is a question for Scott. What does that mean, AI on the CPU? >> Well, as David was talking about, we're just seeing this explosion of different use cases. And some of those on the Edge, some of them in the Cloud, some of them on Prem. But within those individual deployments, there's often different ways that you can do AI, whether that's training or inference. And what we're seeing is a lot of times the memory locality matters quite a bit. You don't want to have to pay necessarily a cost going across the PCI express bus, especially with some of our newer products like the CPU Max series, where you can have a huge about of high bandwidth memory just sitting right on the CPU. Things that traditionally would have been accelerator only, can now live on a CPU, and that includes both on the inference side. We're seeing some really great things with images, where you might have a giant medical image that you need to be able to do extremely high resolution inference on or even text, where you might have a huge corpus of extremely sparse text that you need to be able to randomly sample very efficiently. >> So how are these needs influencing the evolution of Intel CPU architectures? >> So, we're talking to our customers. We're talking to our partners. This presents both an opportunity, but also a challenge with all of these different places that you can put these great products, as well as applications. And so we're very thoughtfully trying to go to the market, see where their needs are, and then meet those needs. This industry obviously has a lot of great players in it, and it's no longer the case that if you build it, they will come. So what we're doing is we're finding where are those choke points, how can we have that biggest difference? Sometimes there's generational leaps, and I know David can speak to this, can be huge from one system to the next just because everything's accelerated on the software side, the hardware side, and the platforms themselves. >> That's right, and we're really excited about that leap. If you take what Scott just described, we've been writing white papers, our team with Scott's team, we've been talking about those types of use cases using doing large image analysis and leveraging system memory, leveraging the CPU to do that, we've been talking about that for several generations now. Right, going back to Cascade Lake, going back to what we would call 14th generation power Edge. And so now as we prepare and continue to unveil, kind of we're in launch season, right, you and I were talking about how we're in launch season. As we continue to unveil and launch more products, the performance improvements are just going to be outstanding and we'll continue that evolution that Scott described. >> Yeah, I'd like to applaud Dell just for a moment for its restraint. Because I know you could've come in and taken all of the space in the convention center to show everything that you do. >> Would have loved to. >> In the HPC space. Now, worst kept secrets on earth at this point. Vying for number one place is the fact that there is a new Mission Impossible movie coming. And there's also new stuff coming from Intel. I know, I think allegedly we're getting close. What can you share with us on that front? And I appreciate it if you can't share a ton of specifics, but where are we going? David just alluded to it. >> Yeah, as David talked about, we've been working on some of these things for many years. And it's just, this momentum is continuing to build, both in respect to some of our hardware investments. We've unveiled some things both here, both on the CPU side and the accelerator side, but also on the software side. OneAPI is gathering more and more traction and the ecosystem is continuing to blossom. Some of our AI and HPC workloads, and the combination thereof, are becoming more and more viable, as well as displacing traditional approaches to some of these problems. And it's this type of thing where it's not linear. It all builds on itself. And we've seen some of these investments that we've made for a better half of a decade starting to bear fruit, but that's, it's not just a one time thing. It's just going to continue to roll out, and we're going to be seeing more and more of this. >> So I want to follow up on something that you mentioned. I don't know if you've ever heard that the Charlie Brown saying that sometimes the most discouraging thing can be to have immense potential. Because between Dell and Intel, you offer so many different versions of things from a fit for function perspective. As a practical matter, how do you work with customers, and maybe this is a question for you, David. How do you work with customers to figure out what the right fit is? >> I'll give you a great example. Just this week, customer conversations, and we can put it in terms of kilowatts to rack, right. How many kilowatts are you delivering at a rack level inside your data center? I've had an answer anywhere from five all the way up to 90. There's some that have been a bit higher that probably don't want to talk about those cases, kind of customers we're meeting with very privately. But the range is really, really large, right, and there's a variety of environments. Customers might be ready for liquid today. They may not be ready for it. They may want to maximize air cooling. Those are the conversations, and then of course it all maps back to the workloads they wish to enable. AI is an extremely overloaded term. We don't have enough time to talk about all the different things that tuck under that umbrella, but the workloads and the outcomes they wish to enable, we have the right solutions. And then we take it a step further by considering where they are today, where they need to go. And I just love that five to 90 example of not every customer has an identical cookie cutter environment, so we've got to have the right platforms, the right solutions, for the right workloads, for the right environments. >> So, I like to dive in on this power issue, to give people who are watching an idea. Because we say five kilowatts, 90 kilowatts, people are like, oh wow, hmm, what does that mean? 90 kilowatts is more than 100 horse power if you want to translate it over. It's a massive amount of power, so if you think of EV terms. You know, five kilowatts is about a hairdryer's around a kilowatt, 1,000 watts, right. But the point is, 90 kilowatts in a rack, that's insane. That's absolutely insane. The heat that that generates has got to be insane, and so it's important. >> Several houses in the size of a closet. >> Exactly, exactly. Yeah, in a rack I explain to people, you know, it's like a refrigerator. But, so in the arena of thermals, I mean is that something during the development of next gen architectures, is that something that's been taken into consideration? Or is it just a race to die size? >> Well, you definitely have to take thermals into account, as well as just the power of consumption themselves. I mean, people are looking at their total cost of ownership. They're looking at sustainability. And at the end of the day, they need to solve a problem. There's many paths up that mountain, and it's about choosing that right path. We've talked about this before, having extremely thoughtful partners, we're just not going to common-torily try every single solution. We're going to try to find the ones that fit that right mold for that customer. And we're seeing more and more people, excuse me, care about this, more and more people wanting to say, how do I do this in the most sustainable way? How do I do this in the most reliable way, given maybe different fluctuations in their power consumption or their power pricing? We're developing more software tools and obviously partnering with great partners to make sure we do this in the most thoughtful way possible. >> Intel put a lot of, made a big investment by buying Habana Labs for its acceleration technology. They're based in Israel. You're based on the west coast. How are you coordinating with them? How will the Habana technology work its way into more mainstream Intel products? And how would Dell integrate those into your servers? >> Good question. I guess I can kick this off. So Habana is part of the Intel family now. They've been integrated in. It's been a great journey with them, as some of their products have launched on AWS, and they've had some very good wins on MLPerf and things like that. I think it's about finding the right tool for the job, right. Not every problem is a nail, so you need more than just a hammer. And so we have the Xeon series, which is incredibly flexible, can do so many different things. It's what we've come to know and love. On the other end of the spectrum, we obviously have some of these more deep learning focused accelerators. And if that's your problem, then you can solve that problem in incredibly efficient ways. The accelerators themselves are somewhere in the middle, so you get that kind of Goldilocks zone of flexibility and power. And depending on your use case, depending on what you know your workloads are going to be day in and day out, one of these solutions might work better for you. A combination might work better for you. Hybrid compute starts to become really interesting. Maybe you have something that you need 24/7, but then you only need a burst to certain things. There's a lot of different options out there. >> The portfolio approach. >> Exactly. >> And then what I love about the work that Scott's team is doing, customers have told us this week in our meetings, they do not want to spend developer's time porting code from one stack to the next. They want that flexibility of choice. Everyone does. We want it in our lives, in our every day lives. They need that flexibility of choice, but they also, there's an opportunity cost when their developers have to choose to port some code over from one stack to another or spend time improving algorithms and doing things that actually generate, you know, meaningful outcomes for their business or their research. And so if they are, you know, desperately searching I would say for that solution and for help in that area, and that's what we're working to enable soon. >> And this is what I love about oneAPI, our software stack, it's open first, heterogeneous first. You can take SYCL code, it can run on competitor's hardware. It can run on Intel hardware. It's one of these things that you have to believe long term, the future is open. Wall gardens, the walls eventually crumble. And we're just trying to continue to invest in that ecosystem to make sure that the in-developer at the end of the day really gets what they need to do, which is solving their business problem, not tinkering with our drivers. >> Yeah, I actually saw an interesting announcement that I hadn't been tracking. I hadn't been tracking this area. Chiplets, and the idea of an open standard where competitors of Intel from a silicone perspective can have their chips integrated via a universal standard. And basically you had the top three silicone vendors saying, yeah, absolutely, let's work together. Cats and dogs. >> Exactly, but at the end of the day, it's whatever menagerie solves the problem. >> Right, right, exactly. And of course Dell can solve it from any angle. >> Yeah, we need strong partners to build the platforms to actually do it. At the end of the day, silicone without software is just sand. Sand with silicone is poorly written prose. But without an actual platform to put it on, it's nothing, it's a box that sits in the corner. >> David, you mentioned that 90% of power age servers now support GPUs. So how is this high-performing, the growth of high performance computing, the demand, influencing the evolution of your server architecture? >> Great question, a couple of ways. You know, I would say 90% of our platforms support GPUs. 100% of our platforms support AI use cases. And it goes back to the CPU compute stack. As we look at how we deliver different form factors for customers, we go back to that range, I said that power range this week of how do we enable the right air coolant solutions? How do we deliver the right liquid cooling solutions, so that wherever the customer is in their environment, and whatever footprint they have, we're ready to meet it? That's something you'll see as we go into kind of the second half of launch season and continue rolling out products. You're going to see some very compelling solutions, not just in air cooling, but liquid cooling as well. >> You want to be more specific? >> We can't unveil everything at Supercompute. We have a lot of great stuff coming up here in the next few months, so. >> It's kind of like being at a great restaurant when they offer you dessert, and you're like yeah, dessert would be great, but I just can't take anymore. >> It's a multi course meal. >> At this point. Well, as we wrap, I've got one more question for each of you. Same question for each of you. When you think about high performance computing, super computing, all of the things that you're doing in your partnership, driving artificial intelligence, at that tip of the spear, what kind of insights are you looking forward to us being able to gain from this technology? In other words, what cool thing, what do you think is cool out there from an AI perspective? What problem do you think we can solve in the near future? What problems would you like to solve? What gets you out of bed in the morning? Cause it's not the little, it's not the bits and the bobs and the speeds and the feats, it's what we're going to do with them, so what do you think, David? >> I'll give you an example. And I think, I saw some of my colleagues talk about this earlier in the week, but for me what we could do in the past two years to unable our customers in a quarantine pandemic environment, we were delivering platforms and solutions to help them do their jobs, help them carry on in their lives. And that's just one example, and if I were to map that forward, it's about enabling that human progress. And it's, you know, you ask a 20 year version of me 20 years ago, you know, if you could imagine some of these things, I don't know what kind of answer you would get. And so mapping forward next decade, next two decades, I can go back to that example of hey, we did great things in the past couple of years to enable our customers. Just imagine what we're going to be able to do going forward to enable that human progress. You know, there's great use cases, there's great image analysis. We talked about some. The images that Scott was referring to had to do with taking CAT scan images and being able to scan them for tumors and other things in the healthcare industry. That is stuff that feels good when you get out of bed in the morning, to know that you're enabling that type of progress. >> Scott, quick thoughts? >> Yeah, and I'll echo that. It's not one specific use case, but it's really this wave front of all of these use cases, from the very micro of developing the next drug to finding the next battery technology, all the way up to the macro of trying to have an impact on climate change or even the origins of the universe itself. All of these fields are seeing these massive gains, both from the software, the hardware, the platforms that we're bringing to bear to these problems. And at the end of the day, humanity is going to be fundamentally transformed by the computation that we're launching and working on today. >> Fantastic, fantastic. Thank you, gentlemen. You heard it hear first, Intel and Dell just committed to solving the secrets of the universe by New Years Eve 2023. >> Well, next Supercompute, let's give us a little time. >> The next Supercompute Convention. >> Yeah, next year. >> Yeah, SC 2023, we'll come back and see what problems have been solved. You heard it hear first on theCube, folks. By SC 23, Dell and Intel are going to reveal the secrets of the universe. From here, at SC 22, I'd like to thank you for joining our conversation. I'm Dave Nicholson, with my co-host Paul Gillin. Stay tuned to theCube's coverage of Supercomputing Conference 22. We'll be back after a short break. (techno music)

(upbeat music) >> Hello, and welcome to The Great Cloud Debate. I'm your moderator Rachel Dines. I'm joined by two debaters today Corey Quinn, Cloud Economist at the Duckbill Group and Stu Miniman, Senior Analyst and Host of theCube. Welcome Corey and Stu, this when you can say hello. >> Hey Rachel, great to talk to you. >> And it's better to talk to me. It's always a pleasure to talk to the fine folks over at CloudHealth at by VMware and less of the pleasure to talk to Stu. >> Smack talk is scheduled for later in the agenda gentlemen, so please keep it to a minimum now to keep us on schedule. So here's how today is going to work. I'm going to introduce a debate topic and assign Corey and Stu each to a side. Remember, their assignments are what I decide and they might not actually match their true feelings about a topic, and it definitely does not represent the feelings of their employer or my employer, importantly. Each debater is going to have two minutes to state their opening arguments, then we'll have rebuttals. And each round you the audience gets to vote of who you think is winning. And at the end of the debate, I'll announce the winner. The prize is bragging rights of course, but then also we're having each debater play to win lunch for their local hospital, which is really exciting. So Stu, which hospital are you playing for? >> Yeah, so Rachel, I'm choosing Brigham Women's Hospital. I get a little bit of a home vote for the Boston audience here and was actually my wife's first job out of school. >> Great hospital. Very, very good. All right, Corey, what about you? >> My neighbor winds up being as specialist in infectious diseases as a doctor, and that was always one of those weird things you learn over a cocktail party until this year became incredibly relevant. So I will absolutely be sending the lunch to his department. >> Wonderful! All right. Well, is everyone ready? Any last words? This is your moment for smack talk. >> I think I'll say that for once we can apply it to a specific technology area. Otherwise, it was insulting his appearance and that's too easy. >> All right, let's get going. The first topic is multicloud. Corey, you'll be arguing that companies are better off standardizing on a single cloud. While Stu, you're going to argue the companies are better off with a multicloud strategy. Corey, you're up first, two minutes on the clock and go. >> All right. As a general rule, picking a single provider and going all in leads to the better outcome. Otherwise, you're trying to build every workload to run seamlessly on other providers on a moment's notice. You don't ever actually do it and all you're giving up in return is the ability to leverage whatever your primary cloud provider is letting you build. Now you're suddenly trying to make two differently behaving load balancers work together in the same way, you're using terraform or as I like to call it multicloud formation in the worst of all possible ways. Because now you're having to only really build on one provider, but all the work you're putting in to make that scale to other providers, you might theoretically want to go to at some point, it slows you down, you're never going to be able to move as quickly trying to build for everyone as you are for one particular provider. And I don't care which provider you pick, you probably care which one you pick, I don't care which one. The point is, you've got to pick what's right for your business. And in almost every case, that means start on a single platform. And if you need to migrate down the road years from now, great, that means A you've survived that long, and B you now have the longevity as a business to understand what migrating looks like. Otherwise you're not able to take care of any of the higher level offerings these providers offer that are even slightly differentiated from each other. And even managed database services behave differently. You've got to become a master of all the different ways these things can fail and unfortunate and displeasing ways. It just leaves you in a position where you're not able to specialize, and of course, makes hiring that much harder. Stu, fight me! >> Tough words there. All right, Stu, your turn. Why are companies better off if they go with a multicloud strategy? Got two minutes? >> Yeah, well first of all Corey, I'm really glad that I didn't have to whip out the AWS guidelines, you were not sticking strictly to it and saying that you could not use the words multicloud, cross-cloud, any cloud or every cloud so thank you for saving me that argument. But I want you to kind of come into the real world a little bit. We want access to innovation, we want flexibility, and well, we used to say I would have loved to have a single provider, in the real world we understand that people end up using multiple solutions. If you look at the AI world today, there's not a provider that is a clear leader in every environment that I have. So there's a reason why I might want to use a lot of clouds. Most companies I talked to, Corey, they still have some of their own servers. They're working in a data center, we've seen huge explosion in the service provider world connecting to multiple clouds. So well, a couple of years ago, multicloud was a complete mess. Now, it's only a little bit of a mess, Corey. So absolutely, there's work that we need to do as an industry to make these solutions better. I've been pining for a couple years to say that multicloud needs to be stronger than the sum of its pieces. And we might not yet be there but limiting yourself to a single cloud is reducing your access to innovation, it's reducing your flexibility. And when you start looking at things like edge computing and AI, I'm going to need to access services from multiple providers. So single cloud is a lovely ideal, but in the real world, we understand that teams come with certain skill sets. We end up in many industries, we have mergers and acquisitions. And it's not as easy to just rip out all of your cloud, like you would have 20 years ago, if you said, "Oh, well, they have a phone system or a router "that didn't match what our corporate guidelines is." Cloud is what we're doing. There's lots of solutions out there. And therefore, multicloud is the reality today, and will be the reality going forward for many years to come. >> Strong words from you, Stu. Corey, you've got 60 seconds for rebuttal. I mostly agree with what you just said. I think that having different workloads in different clouds makes an awful lot of sense. Data gravity becomes a bit of a bear. But if you acquire a company that's running on a different cloud than the one that you've picked, you'd be ridiculous to view migrating as anything approaching a strategic priority. Now, this also gets into the question of what is cloud? Our G Suite stuff counts as cloud, but no one really views it in that way. Similarly, when you have an AI specific workload, that's great. As long as it isn't you seriously expensive to move data between providers. That workload doesn't need to live in the same place as your marketing website does. I think that the idea of having a specific cloud provider that you go all in on for every use case, well, at some point that leads to ridiculous things like pretending that Amazon WorkDocs has customers, it does not. But for things that matter to your business and looking at specific workloads, I think that you're going to find a primary provider with secondary workloads here and they're scattered elsewhere to be the strategy that people are getting at when they use the word multicloud badly. >> Time's up for you Corey, Stu we've got time for rebuttal and remember, for those of you in the audience, you can vote at any time and who you think is winning this round. Stu, 60 seconds for a rebuttal. >> Yeah, absolutely Corey. Look, you just gave the Andy Jassy of what multicloud should be 70 to 80% goes to a single provider. And it does make sense we know nobody ever said multicloud equals the same amount in multiple environments but you made a clear case as to why multicloud leveraging multi providers is likely what most companies are going to do. So thank you so much for making a clear case as to why multicloud not equal cloud, across multiple providers is the way to go. So thank you for conceding the victory. >> Last Words, Corey. >> If that's what you took from it Stu, I can't get any closer to it than you have. >> All right, let's move on to the next topic then. The next topic is serverless versus containers which technology is going to be used in, let's say, five to 10 years time? And as a reminder, I'm going to assign each of the debaters these topics, their assignments may or may not match their true feelings about this topic, and they definitely don't represent the topics of my employer, CloudHealth by VMware. Stu, you're going to argue for containers. Corey you're going to argue for start serverless. Stu, you're up first. Two minutes on the clock and go. >> All right, so with all respect to my friends in the serverless community, We need to have a reality check as to how things work. We all know that serverless is a ridiculous name because underneath we do need to worry about all of the infrastructure underneath. So containers today are the de facto building block for cloud native architectures, just as the VM defined the ecosystem for an entire generation of solutions. Containers are the way we build things today. It is the way Google has architected their entire solution and underneath it is often something that's used with serverless. So yes, if you're, building an Alexa service, serverless make what's good for you. But for the vast majority of solutions, I need to have flexibility, I need to understand how things work underneath it. We know in IT that it's great when things work, but we need to understand how to fix them when they break. So containerization gets us to that atomic level, really close to having the same thing as the application. And therefore, we saw the millions of users that deploy Docker, we saw the huge wave of container orchestration led by Kubernetes. And the entire ecosystem and millions of customers are now on board with this way of designing and architecting and breaking down the silos between the infrastructure world and the application developer world. So containers, here to stay growing fast. >> All right, Corey, what do you think? Why is serverless the future? >> I think that you're right in that containers are the way you get from where you were to something that runs effectively in a cloud environment. That is why Google is so strongly behind Kubernetes it helps get the entire industry to write code the way that Google might write code. And that's great. But if you're looking at effectively rewriting something from scratch, or building something that new, the idea of not having to think about infrastructure in the traditional sense of being able to just here, take this code and run it in a given provider that takes whatever it is that you need to do and could loose all these other services together, saves an awful lot of time. As that continues to move up the stack towards the idea of no code or low code. And suddenly, you're now able to build these applications in ways that require just a little bit of code that tie together everything else. We're closer than ever to that old trope of the only code you write is business logic. Serverless gives a much clearer shot of getting there, if you can divorce yourself from the past of legacy workloads. Legacy, of course meaning older than 18 months and makes money. >> Stu, do you have a rebuttal, 60 seconds? >> Yeah. So Corey, we've been talking about this Nirvana in many ways. It's the discussion that we had for paths for over a decade now. I want to be able to write my code once not worry about where it lives, and do all this. But sometimes, there's a reason why we keep trying the same thing over and over again, but never reaching it. So serverless is great for some application If you talked about, okay, if you're some brand new webby thing there and I don't want to have to do this team, that's awesome. I've talked to some wonderful people that don't know anything about coding that have built some cool stuff with serverless. But cool stuff isn't what most business runs on, and therefore containerization is, as you said, it's a bridge to where I need to go, it lives in these cloud environments, and it is the present and it is the future. >> Corey, your response. >> I agree that it's the present, I doubt that it's the future in quite the same way. Right now Kubernetes is really scratching a major itch, which is how all of these companies who are moving to public cloud still I can have their infrastructure teams be able to cosplay as cloud providers themselves. And over time, that becomes simpler and I think on some level, you might even see a convergence of things that are container workloads begin to look a lot more like serverless workloads. Remember, we're aiming at something that is five years away in the context of this question. I think that the serverless and container landscape will look very different. The serverless landscape will be bright and exciting and new, whereas unfortunately the container landscape is going to be represented by people like you Stu. >> Hoarse words from Corey. Stu, any last words or rebuttals? >> Yeah, and look Corey absolutely just like we don't really think about the underlying server or VM, we won't think about the containers you won't think about Kubernetes in the future, but, the question is, which technology will be used in five to 10 years, it'll still be there. It will be the fabric of our lives underneath there for containerization. So, that is what we were talking about. Serverless I think will be useful in pockets of places but will not be the predominant technology, five years from now. >> All right, tough to say who won that one? I'm glad I don't have to decide. I hope everyone out there is voting, last chance to vote on this question before we move on to the next. Next topic is cloud wars. I'm going to give a statement and then I'm going to assign each of you a pro or a con, Google will never be an actual contender in the cloud wars always a far third, we're going to have Corey arguing that Google is never going to be an actual contender. And Stu, you're going to argue that Google is eventually going to overtake the top two AWS and Azure. As a constant reminder, I'm assigning these topics, it's my decision and also they don't match the opinions of me, my employer, or likely Stu or Corey. This is all just for fun and games. But I really want to hear what everyone has to say. So Corey, you're up first two minutes. Why is Google never going to be an actual contender and go. >> The biggest problem Google has in the time of cloud is their ability to forecast longer term on anything that isn't their advertising business, and their ability to talk to human beings long enough to meet people where they are. We're replacing their entire culture is what it's going to take to succeed in the time of cloud and with respect, Thomas Kurian is a spectacular leader internally but look at where he's come from. He spent 22 years at Oracle and now has been transplanted into Google. If we take a look at Satya Nadella's cloud transformation at Microsoft, he was able to pull that off as an insider, after having known intimately every aspect of that company, and he grew organically with it and was perfectly positioned to make that change. You can't instill that kind of culture change by dropping someone externally, on top of an organization and expecting anything to go with this magic one day wake up and everything's going to work out super well. Google has a tremendous amount of strengths, and I don't see that providing common denominator cloud computing services to a number of workloads that from a Google perspective are horrifying, is necessarily in their wheelhouse. It feels like their entire focus on this is well, there's money over there. We should go get some of that too. It comes down to the traditional Google lack of focus. >> Stu, rebuttal? Why do you think Google has a shaft? >> Yeah, so first of all, Corey, I think we'd agree Google is a powerhouse in the world today. My background is networking, when they first came out with with Google Cloud, I said, Google has the best network, second to none in the world. They are ubiquitous today. If you talk about the impact they have on the world, Android phones, you mentioned Kubernetes, everybody uses G Suite maps, YouTube, and the like. That does not mean that they are necessarily going to become the clear leader in cloud but, Corey, they've got really, really smart people. If you're not familiar with that talk to them. They'll tell you how smart they are. And they have built phenomenal solutions, who's going to be able to solve, the challenge every day of, true distributed systems, that a global database that can handle the clock down to the atomic level, Google's the one that does that we've all read the white papers on that. They've set the tone for Hadoop, and various solutions that are all over the place, and their secret weapon is not the advertising, of course, that is a big concern for them, but is that if you talk about, the consumer adoption, everyone uses Google. My kids have all had Chromebooks growing up. It isn't their favorite thing, but they get, indoctrinated with Google technology. And as they go out and leverage technologies in the world, Google is one that is known. Google has the strength of technology and a lot of positioning and partnerships to move them forward. Everybody wants a strong ecosystem in cloud, we don't want a single provider. We already discussed this before, but just from a competitive nature standpoint, if there is a clear counterbalance to AWS, I would say that it is Google, not Microsoft, that is positioned to be that clear and opportune. >> Interesting, very interesting Stu. So your argument is the Gen Zers will of ultimately when they come of age become the big Google proponents. Some strong words that as well but they're the better foil to AWS, Corey rebuttal? >> I think that Stu is one t-shirt change away from a pitch perfect reenactment of Charlie Brown. In this case with Google playing the part of Lucy yanking the football away every time. We've seen it with inbox, Google Reader, Google Maps, API pricing, GKE's pricing for control plane. And when your argument comes down to a suddenly Google is going to change their entire nature and become something that it is as proven as constitutionally incapable of being, namely supporting something that its customers want that it doesn't itself enjoy working on. And to the exclusion of being able to get distracted and focused on other things. Even their own conferences called Next because Google is more interested in what they're shipping than what they're building, than what they're currently shipping. I think that it is a fantasy to pretend that that is somehow going to change without a complete cultural transformation, which again, I don't see the seeds being planted for. >> Some sick burns in there Stu, rebuttal? >> Yeah. So the final word that I'll give you on this is, one of the most important pieces of what we need today. And we need to tomorrow is our data. Now, there are some concerns when we talk about Google and data, but Google also has strong strength in data, understanding data, helping customers leverage data. So while I agree to your points about the cultural shift, they have the opportunity to take the services that they have, and enable customers to be able to take their data to move forward to the wonderful world of AI, cloud, edge computing, and all of those pieces and solve the solution with data. >> Strong words there. All right, that's a tough one. Again, I hope you're all out there voting for who you think won that round. Let's move on to the last round before we start hitting the lightning questions. I put a call out on several channels and social media for people to have questions that they want you to debate. And this one comes from Og-AWS Slack member, Angelo. Angelo asks, "What about IBM Cloud?" Stu you're pro, Corey you're con. Let's have Stu you're up first. The question is, what about IBM Cloud? >> All right, so great question, Angelo. I think when you look at the cloud providers, first of all, you have to understand that they're not all playing the same game. We talked about AWS and they are the elephant in the room that moves nimbly as a cheetah. Every other provider plays a little bit of a different game. Google has strength in data. Microsoft, of course, has their, business productivity applications. IBM has a strong legacy. Now, Corey is going to say that they are just legacy and you need to think about them but IBM has strong innovation. They are a player in really what we call chapter two of the cloud. So when we start talking about multicloud, when we start talking about living in many environments, IBM was the first one to partner with VMware for VMware cloud before the mega VMware AWS announcement, there was IBM up on stage and if I remember right, they actually have more VMware customers on IBM Cloud than they do in the AWS cloud. So over my shoulder here, there's of course, the Red Hat $34 billion to bet on that multicloud solution. So as we talk about containerization, and Kubernetes, Red Hat is strongly positioned in open-source, and flexibility. So you really need a company that understands both the infrastructure side and the application side. IBM has database, IBM has infrastructure, IBM has long been the leader in middleware, and therefore IBM has a real chance to be a strong player in this next generation of platforms. Doesn't mean that they're necessarily going to go attack Amazon, they're partnering across the board. So I think you will see a kinder, gentler IBM and they are leveraging open source and Red Hat and I think we've let the dogs out on the IBM solution. >> Indeed. >> So before Corey goes, I feel the need to remind everyone that the views expressed here are not the views of my employer nor myself, nor necessarily of Corey or Stu. I have Corey. >> I haven't even said anything yet. And you're disclaiming what I'm about to say. >> I'm just warning the audience, 'cause I can't wait to hear what you're going to say next. >> Sounds like I have to go for the high score. All right. IBM's best days are behind it. And that is pretty clear. They like to get angry when people talk about how making the jokes about a homogenous looking group of guys in blue suits as being all IBM has to offer. They say that hasn't been true since the '80s. But that was the last time people cared about IBM in any meaningful sense and no one has bothered to update the relevance since then. Now, credit where due, I am seeing an awful lot of promoted tweets from IBM into my timeline, all talking about how amazing their IBM blockchain technology is. And yes, that is absolutely the phrasing of someone who's about to turn it all around and win the game. I don't see it happening. >> Stu, rebuttal? >> Look, Corey, IBM was the company that brought us the UPC code. They understand Mac manufacturing and blockchain actually shows strong presence in supply chain management. So maybe you're not quite aware of some of the industries that IBM is an expert in. So that is one of the big strengths of IBM, they really understand verticals quite well. And, at the IBM things show, I saw a lot in the healthcare world, had very large customers that were leveraging those solutions. So while you might dismiss things when they say, Oh, well, one of the largest telecom providers in India are leveraging OpenStack and you kind of go with them, well, they've got 300 million customers, and they're thrilled with the solution that they're doing with IBM, so it is easy to scoff at them, but IBM is a reliable, trusted provider out there and still very strong financially and by the way, really excited with the new leadership in place there, Arvind Krishna knows product, Jim Whitehurst came from the Red Hat side. So don't be sleeping on IBM. >> Corey, any last words? >> I think that they're subject to massive disruption as soon as they release the AWS 400 mainframe in the cloud. And I think that before we, it's easy to forget this, but before Google was turning off Reader, IBM stopped making the model M buckling spring keyboards. Those things were masterpieces and that was one of the original disappointments that we learned that we can't fall in love with companies, because companies in turn will not love us back. IBM has demonstrated that. Lastly, I think I'm thrilled to be working with IBM is exactly the kind of statement one makes only at gunpoint. >> Hey, Corey, by the way, I think you're spending too much time looking at all titles of AWS services, 'cause you don't know the difference between your mainframe Z series and the AS/400 which of course is heavily pending. >> Also the i series. Oh yes. >> The i series. So you're conflating your system, which still do billions of dollars a year, by the way. >> Oh, absolutely. But that's not we're not seeing new banks launching and then building on top of IBM mainframe technology. I'm not disputing that mainframes were phenomenal. They were, I just don't see them as the future and I don't see a cloud story. >> Only a cloud live your mainframe related smack talk. That's the important thing that we're getting to here. All right, we move-- >> I'm hoping there's an announcement from CloudHealth by VMware that they also will now support mainframe analytics as well as traditional cloud. >> I'll look into that. >> Excellent. >> We're moving on to the lightning rounds. Each debater in this round is only going to get 60 seconds for their opening argument and then 30 seconds for a rebuttal. We're going to hit some really, really big important questions here like this first one, which is who deserves to sit on the Iron Throne at the end of "Game of Thrones?" I've been told that Corey has never seen this TV show so I'm very interested to hear him argue for Sansa. But let's Sansa Stark, let's hear Stu go first with his argument for Jon Snow. Stu one minute on the clock, go. >> All right audience let's hear it from the king of the north first of all. Nothing better than Jon Snow. He made the ultimate sacrifice. He killed his love to save Westeros from clear destruction because Khaleesi had gone mad. So Corey is going to say something like it's time for the women to do this but it was a woman she went mad. She started burning the place down and Jon Snow saved it so it only makes sense that he should have done it. Everyone knows it was a travesty that he was sent back to the Wall, and to just wander the wild. So absolutely Jon Snow vote for King of the North. >> Compelling arguments. Corey, why should Sansa Stark sit on the throne? Never having seen the show I've just heard bits and pieces about it and all involves things like bloody slaughters, for example, the AWS partner Expo right before the keynote is best known as AWS red wedding. We take a look at that across the board and not having seen it, I don't know the answer to this question, but how many of the folks who are in positions of power we're in fact mediocre white dudes and here we have Stu advocating for yet another one. Sure, this is a lightning round of a fun event but yes, we should continue to wind up selecting this mediocre white person has many parallels in terms of power, et cetera, politics, current tech industry as a whole. I think she's right we absolutely should give someone with a look like this a potential opportunity to see what they can do instead. >> Ouch, Stu 30 seconds rebuttal. >> Look, I would just give a call out to the women in the audience and say, don't you want Jon Snow to be king? >> I also think it's quite bold of Corey to say that he looks like Kit Harington. Corey, any last words? >> I think that it sad you think Stu was running for office at this point because he's become everyone's least favorite animal, a panda bear. >> Fire. All right, so on to the next question. This one also very important near and dear to my heart personally, is a hot dog a sandwich. Corey you'll be arguing no, Stu will be arguing yes. I must also add this important disclaimer that these assignments are made by me and might not reflect the actual views of the debaters here so Corey, you're up first. Why is a hot dog not a sandwich? >> Because you'll get punched in the face if you go to a deli of any renown and order a hot dog. That is not what they serve there. They wind up having these famous delicatessen in New York they have different sandwiches named after different celebrities. I shudder to think of the deadly insult that naming a hot dog after a celebrity would be to that not only celebrity in some cases also the hot dog too. If you take a look and you want to get sandwiches for lunch? Sure. What are we having catered for this event? Sandwiches. You show up and you see a hot dog, you're looking around the hot dog to find the rest of the sandwich. Now while it may check all of the boxes for a technical definition of what a sandwich is, as I'm sure Stu will boringly get into, it's not what people expect, there's a matter of checking the actual boxes, and then delivering what customers actually want. It's why you can let your product roadmap be guided by cart by customers or by Gartner but rarely both. >> Wow, that one hurts. Stu, why is the hot dog a sandwich? >> Yeah so like Corey, I'm sorry that you must not have done some decent traveling 'cause I'm glad you brought up the definition because I'm not going to bore you with yes, there's bread and there's meat and there's toppings and everything else like that but there are some phenomenal hot dogs out there. I traveled to Iceland a few years ago, and there's a little hot dog stand out there that's been there for over 40 or 50 years. And it's one of the top 10 culinary experience I put in. And I've been to Michelin star restaurants. You go to Chicago and any local will be absolutely have to try our creation. There are regional hot dogs. There are lots of solutions there and so yeah, of course you don't go to a deli. Of course if you're going to the deli for takeout and you're buying meats, they do sell hot dogs, Corey, it's just not the first thing that you're going to order on the menu. So I think you're underselling the hot dog. Whether you are a child and grew up and like eating nothing more than the mustard or ketchup, wherever you ate on it, or if you're a world traveler, and have tried some of the worst options out there. There are a lot of options for hot dogs so hot dog, sandwich, culinary delight. >> Stu, don't think we didn't hear that pun. I'm not sure if that counts for or against you, but Corey 30 seconds rebuttal. >> In the last question, you were agitating for putting a white guy back in power. Now you're sitting here arguing that, "Oh some of my best friend slash meals or hot dogs." Yeah, I think we see what you're putting down Stu and it's not pretty, it's really not pretty and I think people are just going to start having to ask some very pointed, delicate questions. >> Tough words to hear Stu. Close this out or rebuttal. >> I'm going to take the high road, Rachel and leave that where it stands. >> I think that is smart. All right, next question. Tabs versus spaces. Stu, you're going to argue for tabs, Corey, you're going to argue for spaces just to make this fun. Stu, 60 seconds on the clock, you're up first. Why are tabs the correct approach? >> First of all, my competitor here really isn't into pop culture. So he's probably not familiar with the epic Silicon Valley argument over this discussion. So, Corey, if you could explain the middle of algorithm, we will be quite impressed but since you don't, we'll just have to go with some of the technology first. Looks, developers, we want to make things simple on you. Tabs, they're faster to do they take up less memory. Yes, they aren't quite as particular as using spaces but absolutely, they get the job done and it is important to just, focus on productivity, I believe that the conversation as always, the less code you can write, the better and therefore, if you don't have to focus on exactly how many spaces and you can just simplify with the tabs, you're gona get close enough for most of the job. And it is easier to move forward and focus on the real work rather than some pedantic discussion as to whether one thing is slightly more efficient than the other. >> Great points Stu. Corey, why is your pedantic approach better? >> No one is suggesting you sit there and whack the spacebar four times or eight times you hit the Tab key, but your editor should be reasonably intelligent enough to expand that. At that point, you have now set up a precedent where in other cases, other parts of your codebase you're using spaces because everyone always does. And that winds up in turn, causing a weird dissonance you'll see a bunch of linters throwing issues if you use tabs as a direct result. Now the wrong answer is, of course, and I think Steve will agree with me both in the same line. No one is ever in favor of that. But I also want to argue with Stu over his argument about "Oh, it saves a little bit of space "is the reason one should go with tabs instead." Sorry, that argument said bye bye a long time ago, and that time was the introduction of JavaScript, where it takes many hundreds of Meg's of data to wind up building hello world. Yeah, at that point optimization around small character changes are completely irrelevant. >> Stu, rebuttal? >> Yeah, I didn't know that Corey did not try to defend that he had any idea what Silicon Valley was, or any of the references in there. So Rachel, we might have to avoid any other pop culture references. We know Corey just looks at very specific cloud services and can't have fun with some of the broader themes there. >> You're right my mistake Stu. Corey, any last words? >> It's been suggested that whole middle out seen on the whiteboard was came from a number of conversations I used to have with my co-workers as in people who were sitting in the room with me watching that episode said, Oh my God, I've been in the room while you had this debate with your friend and I will not name here because they at least still strive to remain employable. Yeah, it's, I understand the value in the picking these fights, we could have gone just as easily with vi versus Emacs, AWS versus Azure, or anything else that you really care to pick a fight with. But yeah, this is exactly the kind of pedantic fight that everyone loves to get involved with, which is why I walked a different path and pick other ridiculous arguments. >> Speaking of those ridiculous arguments that brings us to our last debate topic of the day, Corey you are probably best known for your strong feelings about the pronunciation of the acronym for Amazon Machine Image. I will not be saying how I think it is pronounced. We're going to have you argue each. Stu, you're going to argue that the acronym Amazon Machine Image should be pronounced to rhyme with butterfly. Corey, you'll be arguing that it rhymes with mommy. Stu, rhymes with butterfly. Let's hear it, 60 seconds on the clock. >> All right, well, Rachel, first of all, I wish I could go to the videotape because I have clear video evidence from a certain Corey Quinn many times arguing why AMI is the proper way to pronounce this, but it is one of these pedantic arguments, is it GIF or GIF? Sometimes you go back and you say, Okay, well, there's the way that the community did it. And the way that oh wait, the founder said it was a certain way. So the only argument against AMI, Jeff Barr, when he wrote about the history of all of the blogging that he's done from AWS said, I wish when I had launched the service that I pointed out the correct pronunciation, which I won't even deem to talk it because the community has agreed by and large that AMI is the proper way to pronounce it. And boy, the tech industry is rific on this kind of thing. Is it SQL and no SQL and you there's various ways that we butcher these constantly. So AMI, almost everyone agrees and the lead champion for this argument, of course is none other than Corey Quinn. >> Well, unfortunately today Corey needs to argue the opposite. So Corey, why does Amazon Machine Image when pronounce as an acronym rhyme with mommy? >> Because the people who built it at Amazon say that it is and an appeal to authorities generally correct when the folks built this. AWS has said repeatedly that they're willing to be misunderstood for long periods of time. And this is one of those areas in which they have been misunderstood by virtually the entire industry, but they are sticking to their guns and continuing to wind up advocating for AMI as the correct pronunciation. But I'll take it a step further. Let's take a look at the ecosystem companies. Whenever Erica Brescia, who is now the COO and GitHub, but before she wound up there, she was the founder of Bitnami. And whenever I call it Bitn AMI she looks like she is barely successfully restraining herself from punching me right in the mouth for that pronunciation of the company. Clearly, it's Bitnami named after the original source AMI, which is what the proper term pronunciation of the three letter acronym becomes. Fight me Stu. >> Interesting. Interesting argument, Stu 30 seconds, rebuttal. >> Oh, the only thing he can come up with is that, you take the word Bitnami and because it has that we know that things sound very different if you put a prefix or a suffix, if you talk to the Kubernetes founders, Kubernetes should be coop con but the people that run the conference, say it cube con so there are lots of debates between the people that create it and the community. I in general, I'm going to vote with the community most of the time. Corey, last words on this topic 'cause I know you have very strong feelings about it. >> I'm sorry, did Stu just say Kubernetes and its community as bastions of truth when it comes to pronouncing anything correctly? Half of that entire conference is correcting people's pronunciation of Kubernetes, Kubernetes, Kubernetes, Kubernetes and 15 other mispronunciations that they will of course yell at you for but somehow they're right on this one. All right. >> All right, everyone, I hope you've been voting all along for who you think is winning each round, 'cause this has been a tough call. But I would like to say that's a wrap for today. big thank you to our debaters. You've been very good sports, even when I've made you argue for against things that clearly are hurting you deep down inside, we're going to take a quick break and tally all the votes. And we're going to announce a winner up on the Zoom Q and A. So go to the top of your screen, Click on Zoom Q and A to join us and hear the winner announced and also get a couple minutes to chat live with Corey and Stu. Thanks again for attending this session. And thank you again, Corey and Stu. It's been The Great Cloud Debate. All right, so each round I will announce the winner and then we're going to announce the overall winner. Remember that Corey and Stu are playing not just for bragging rights and ownership of all of the internet for the next 24 hours, but also for lunch to be donated to their local hospital. Corey is having lunch donated to the California Pacific Medical Centre. And Stu is having lunch donated to Boston Medical Centre. All right, first up round one multicloud versus monocloud. Stu, you were arguing for multicloud, Corey, you were arguing for one cloud. Stu won that one by 64% of the vote. >> The vendor fix was in. >> Yeah, well, look, CloudHealth started all in AWS by supporting customers across those environments. So and Corey you basically conceded it because we said multicloud does not mean we evenly split things up. So you got to work on those two skills, buddy, 'cause, absolutely you just handed the victory my way. So thank you so much and thank you to the audience for understanding multicloud is where we are today, and unfortunately, it's where we're gonnao be in the future. So as a whole, we're going to try to make it better 'cause it is, as Corey and I both agree, a bit of a mess right now. >> Don't get too cocky. >> One of those days the world is going to catch up with me and realize that ad hominem is not a logical fallacy so much as it is an excellent debating skill. >> Well, yeah, I was going to say, Stu, don't get too cocky because round two serverless versus containers. Stu you argued for containers, Corey you argued for serverless. Corey you won that one with 65, 66 or most percent of the vote. >> You can't fight the future. >> Yeah, and as you know Rachel I'm a big fan of serverless. I've been to the serverless comp, I actually just published an excellent interview with Liberty Mutual and what they're doing with serverless. So love the future, it's got a lot of maturity to deliver on the promise that it has today but containers isn't going anyway or either so. >> So, you're not sad that you lost that one. Got it, good concession speech. Next one up was cloud wars specifically Google. is Google a real contender in the clouds? Stu, you were arguing yes they are. Corey, you were arguing no they aren't. Corey also won this round was 72% of the votes. >> Yeah, it's one of those things where at some point, it's sort of embarrassing if you miss a six inch pot. So it's nice that that didn't happen in this case. >> Yeah, so Corey, is this the last week that we have any competitors to AWS? Is that what we're saying? And we all accept our new overlords. Thank you so much, Corey. >> Well I hope not, my God, I don't know what to be an Amazonian monoculture anymore than I do anyone else. Competition makes all of us better. But again, we're seeing a lot of anti competitive behaviour. For example, took until this year for Microsoft to finally make calculator uninstallable and I trust concerned took a long time to work its way of course. >> Yeah, and Corey, I think everyone is listening to what you've been saying about what Google's doing with Google Meet and forcing that us when we make our pieces there. So definitely there's some things that Google culture, we'd love them to clean up. And that's one of the things that's really held back Google's enterprise budget is that advertised advertising driven culture. So we will see. We are working hand-- >> That was already opted out of Hangouts, how do we fix it? We call it something else that they haven't opted out of yet. >> Hey, but Corey, I know you're looking forward to at least two months of weekly Google live stuff starting this summer. So we'll have a lot of time to talk about google. >> Let's not kid ourselves they're going to cancel it halfway through. (Stu laughs) >> Boys, I thought we didn't have any more smack talk left in you but clearly you do. So, all right, moving on. Next slide. This is the last question that we did in the main part of the debate. IBM Cloud. What about IBM Cloud was the question, Stu, you were pro, Corey you were con. Corey, you won this one again with 62% of the vote and for the main. >> It wasn't just me, IBM Cloud also won. The problem is that competition was oxymoron of the day. >> I don't know Rachel, I thought this one had a real shot as to putting where IBM fits. I thought we had a good discussion there. It seemed like some of the early voting was going my way but it just went otherwise. >> It did. We had some last minute swings in these polls. They were going one direction they rapidly swung another it's a fickle crowd today. So right now we've got Corey with three points Stu with one but really the lightning round anyone's game. They got very close here. The next question, lightning round question one, was "Game of Thrones" who deserves to sit on the Iron Throne? Stu was arguing for Jon Snow, Corey was arguing for Sansa Stark also Corey has never seen Game of Thrones. This was shockingly close with Stu at 51.5% of the vote took the crown on this King of the North Stu. >> Well, I'm thrilled and excited that King of the North pulled things out because it would have been just a complete embarrassment if I lost to Corey on this question. >> It would. >> It was the right answer, and as you said, he had no idea what he's talking about, which, unfortunately is how he is on most of the rest of it. You just don't realize that he doesn't know what he's talking about. 'Cause he uses all those fast words and discussion points. >> Well, thank you for saying the quiet part out loud. Now, I am completely crestfallen as to the results of this question about a thing I've never seen and could not possibly care less about not going in my favor. I will someday managed to get over this. >> I'm glad you can really pull yourself together and keep on going with life, Corey it's inspiring. All right, next question. Was the lightning round question two is a hot dog a sandwich? Stu, you were arguing yes. Corey, you were arguing no. Corey landslide, you won this 75% of the vote. >> It all comes down to customer expectations. >> Yeah. >> Just disappointment. Disappointment. >> All right, next question tabs versus spaces. Another very close one. Stu, what were you arguing for Stu? >> I was voting tabs. >> Tabs, yeah. And Corey, you were arguing spaces. This did not turn out the way I expected. So Stu you lost this by slim margin Corey 53% of the vote. You won with spaces. >> Yep. And I use spaces in my day to day life. So that's a position I can actually believe in. >> See, I thought I was giving you the opposite point of view there. I mistook you for the correct answer, in my opinion, which is tabs. >> Well, it is funnier to stalk me on Twitter and look what I have to there than on GitHub where I just completely commit different kinds of atrocities. So I don't blame you. >> Caught that pun there. All right, the last rounds. Speaking of atrocities, AMI, Amazon Machine Image is it pronounced AMI or AMI? >> I better not have won this one. >> So Stu you were arguing that this is pronounced AMI rhymes with butterfly. Corey, you were arguing that it's pronounced AMI like mommy. Any guesses under who won this? >> It better be Stu. >> It was a 50, 50 split complete tie. So no points to anyone. >> For your complete and utterly failed on this because I should have won in a landslide. My entire argument was based on every discussion you've had on this. So, Corey I think they're just voting for you. So I'm really surprised-- >> I think at this point it shows I'm such a skilled debater that I could have also probably brought you to a standstill taking the position that gravity doesn't exist. >> You're a master of few things, Corey. Usually it's when you were dressed up nicely and I think they like the t-shirt. It's a nice t-shirt but not how we're usually hiding behind the attire. >> Truly >> Well. >> Clothes don't always make a demand. >> Gentlemen, I would like to say overall our winner today with five points is Corey. Congratulations, Corey. >> Thank you very much. It's always a pleasure to mop the floor with you Stu. >> Actually I was going to ask Stu to give the acceptance speech for you, Corey and, Corey, if you could give a few words of concession, >> Oh, that's a different direction. Stu, we'll start with you, I suppose. >> Yeah, well, thank you to the audience. Obviously, you voted for me without really understanding that I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm a loudmouth on Twitter. I just create a bunch of arguments out there. I'm influential for reasons I don't really understand. But once again, thank you for your votes so much. >> Yeah, it's always unfortunate to wind up losing a discussion with someone and you wouldn't consider it losing 'cause most of the time, my entire shtick is that I sit around and talk to people who know what they're talking about. And I look smart just by osmosis sitting next to them. Video has been rough on me. So I was sort of hoping that I'd be able to parlay that into something approaching a victory. But sadly, that hasn't worked out quite so well. This is just yet another production brought to you by theCube which shut down my original idea of calling it a bunch of squares. (Rachael laughs) >> All right, well, on that note, I would like to say thank you both Stu and Corey. I think we can close out officially the debate, but we can all stick around for a couple more minutes in case any fans have questions for either of them or want to get them-- >> Find us a real life? Yeah. >> Yeah, have a quick Zoom fight. So thanks, everyone, for attending. And thank you Stu, thank you Corey. This has been The Great Cloud Debate.