(lively classical music) >> Hello everyone, welcome to this special Cube conversation, we are here at the Power Panel Conversation. I'm John Furrier, in Palo Alto, California, theCUBE studies we have remote on the line here, talk about the cloud technology's impact on entrepreneurship and startups and overall ecosystem is Jim Long, who's the CEO of Didja, which is a startup around disrupting digital TV, also has been an investor and a serial entrepreneur, Sarbjeet Johal, who's the in-cloud influencer of strategy and investor out of Berkeley, California, The Batchery, and also Joseph Jacks, CUBE alumni, actually you guys are all CUBE alumni, so great to have you on. Joseph Jacks is the founder and general partner of OSS Capital, Open Source Software Capital, a new fund that's been raised specifically to commercialize and fund startups around open source software. Guys, we got a great panel here of experts, thanks for joining us, appreciate it. >> Go Bears! >> Nice to be here. >> So we have a distinguished panel, it's the Power Panel, we're on cloud technos, first I'd like to get you guys' reaction you know, you're to seeing a lot of negative news around what Facebook has become, essentially their own hyper-scale cloud with their application. They were called the digital, you know, renegades, or digital gangsters in the UK by the Parliament, which was built on open source software. Amazon's continuing to win, Azure's doing their thing, bundling Office 365, making it look like they've got more revenue with their catching up, Google, and then you got IBM and Oracle, and then you got an ecosystem that's impacted by this large scale, so I want to get your thoughts on first point here. Is there room for more clouds? There's a big buzzword around multiple clouds. Are we going to see specialty clouds? 'Causes Salesforce is a cloud, so is there room for more cloud? Jim, why don't you start? >> Well, I sure hope so. You know, the internet has unfortunately become sort of the internet of monopolies, and that doesn't do anyone any good. In fact, you bring up an interesting point, it'd be kind of interesting to see if Facebook created a social cloud for certain types of applications to use. I've no idea whether that makes any sense, but Amazon's clearly been the big gorilla now, and done an amazing job, we love using them, but we also love seeing, trying out different services that they have and then figuring out whether we want to develop them ourselves or use a specialty service, and I think that's going to be interesting, particularly in the AI area, stuff like that. So I sure hope more clouds are around for all of us to take advantage of. >> Joseph, I want you to weigh in here, 'cause you were close to the Kubernetes trend, in fact we were at a OpenStack event when you started Kismatic, which is the movement that became KubeCon Cloud Native, many many years ago, now you're investing in open source. The world's built on open source, there's got to be room for more clouds. Your thoughts on the opportunities? >> Yeah, thanks for having me on, John. I think we need a new kind of open collaborative cloud, and to date, we haven't really seen any of the existing major sort of large critical mass cloud providers participate in that type of model. Arguably, Google has probably participated and contributed the most in the open source ecosystem, contributing TensorFlow and Kubernetes and Go, lots of different open source projects, but they're ultimately focused on gravitating huge amounts of compute and storage cycles to their cloud platform. So I think one of the big missing links in the industry is, as we continue to see the rise of these large vertically integrated proprietary control planes for computing and storage and applications and services, I think as the open source community and the open source ecosystem continues to grow and explode, we'll need a third sort of provider, one that isn't based on monopoly or based on a traditional proprietary software business like Microsoft kind of transitioning their enterprise customers to services, sort of Amazon in the first camp vertically integrated many a buffet of all these different compute, storage, networking services, application, middleware. Microsoft focused on sort of building managed services of their software portfolio. I think we need a third model where we have sort of an open set of interfaces and an open standards based cloud provider that might be a pure software company, it might be a company that builds on the rails and the infrastructure that Amazon has laid down, spending tens of billions in cap ex, or it could be something based on a project like Kubernetes or built from the community ecosystem. So I think we need something like that just to sort of provide, speed the innovation, and disaggregate the services away from a monolithic kind of closed vendor like Amazon or Azure. >> I want to come back to that whole startup opportunity, but I want to get Sarbjeet in here, because we've been in the B2B area with just last week at IBM Think 2019. Obviously they're trying to get back into the cloud game, but this digital transformation that has been the cliche for almost a couple of years now, if not five or plus. Business has got to move to the cloud, so there's a whole new ball game of complete cultural shift. They need stability. So I want to talk more about this open cloud, which I love that conversation, but give me the blocking and tackling capabilities first, 'cause I got to get out of that old cap ex model, move to an operating model, transform my business, whether it's multi clouds. So Sarbjeet, what's your take on the cloud market for say, the enterprise? >> Yeah, I think for the enterprise... you're just sitting in that data center and moving those to cloud, it's a cumbersome task. For that to work, they actually don't need all the bells and whistles which Amazon has in the periphery, if you will. They need just core things like compute, network, and storage, and some other sort of services, maybe database, maybe data share and stuff like that, but they just want to move those applications as is to start with, with some replatforming and with some changes. Like, they won't make changes to first when they start moving those applications, but our minds are polluted by this thinking. When we see a Facebook being formed by a couple of people, or a company of six people sold for a billion dollars, it just messes up with our mind on the enterprise side, hey we can do that too, we can move that fast and so forth, but it's sort of tragic that we think that way. Well, having said that, and I think we have talked about this in the past. If you are doing anything in the way of systems innovation, if your building those at, even at the enterprise, I think cloud is the way to go. To your original question, if there's room for newer cloud players, I think there is, provided that we can detach the platforms from the environments they are sitting on. So the proprietariness has to kinda, it has to be lowered, the degree of proprietariness has to be lower. It can be through open source I think mainly, it can be from open technologies, they don't have to be open source, but portable. >> JJ was mentioning that, I think that's a big point. Jim Long, you're an entrepreneur, you've been a VC, you know all the VCs, been around for a while, you're also, you're an entrepreneur, you're a serial entrepreneur, starting out at Cal Berkeley back in the day. You know, small ideas can move fast, and you're building on Amazon, and you've got a media kind of thing going on, there's a cloud opportunity for you, 'cause you are cloud native, 'cause you're built in the cloud. How do you see it playing out? 'Cause you're scaling with Amazon. >> Well, so we obviously, as a new startup, don't have the issues the enterprise folks have, and I could really see the enterprise customers, what we used to call the Fortune 500, for example, getting together and insisting on at least a base set of APIs that Amazon and Microsoft et cetera adopt, and for a startup, it's really about moving fast with your own solution that solves a problem. So you don't necessarily care too much that you're tied into Amazon completely because you know that if you need to, you can make a change some day. But they do such a good job for us, and their costs, while they can certainly be lower, and we certainly would like more volume discounts, they're pretty darn amazing across the network, across the internet, we do try to price out other folks just for the heck of it, been doing that recently with CDNs, for example. But for us, we're actually creating a hybrid cloud, if you will, a purpose-built cloud to support local television stations, and we do think that's going to be, along with using Amazon, a unique cloud with our own APIs that we will hopefully have lots of different TV apps use our hybrid cloud for part of their application to service local TV. So it's kind of a interesting play for us, the B2B part of it, we're hoping to be pretty successful as well, and we hope to maybe have multiple cloud vendors in our mix, you know. Not that our users will know who's behind us, maybe Amazon, for something, Limelight for another, or whatever, for example. >> Well you got to be concerned about lock-in as you become in the cloud, that's something that everybody's worried about. JJ, I want to get back to you on the investment thesis, because you have a cutting edge business model around investing in open source software, and there's two schools of thought in the open source community, you know, free contribution's great, and let tha.t be organic, and then there's now commercialization. There's real value being created in open source. You had put together a chart with your team about the billions of dollars in exits from open source companies. So what are you investing in, what do you see as opportunities for entrepreneurs like Jim and others that are out there looking at scaling their business? How do you look at success, what's your advice, what do you see as leading indicators? >> I think I'll broadly answer your question with a model that we've been thinking a lot about. We're going to start writing publicly about it and probably eventually maybe publish a book or two on it, and it's around the sort of fundamental perspective of creating value and capturing value. So if you model a famous investor and entrepreneur in Silicon Valley who has commonly modeled these things using two different letter variables, X and Y, but I'll give you the sort of perspective of modeling value creation and value capture around open source, as compared to closed source or proprietary software. So if you look at value creation modeled as X, and value capture modeled as Y, where X and Y are two independent variables with a fully proprietary software company based approach, whether you're building a cloud service or a proprietary software product or whatever, just a software company, your value creation exponent is typically bounded by two things. Capital and fundraising into the entity creating the software, and the centralization of research and development, meaning engineering output for producing the software. And so those two things are tightly coupled to and bounded to the company. With commercial open source software, the exact opposite is true. So value creation is decoupled and independent from funding, and value creation is also decentralized in terms of the research and development aspect. So you have a sort of decentralized, community-based, crowd-sourced, or sort of internet, global phenomena of contributing to a code base that isn't necessarily owned or fully controlled by a single entity, and those two properties are sort of decoupled from funding and decentralized R and D, are fundamentally changing the value creation kind of exponent. Now let's look at the value capture variable. With proprietary software company, or proprietary technology company, you're primarily looking at two constituents capturing value, people who pay for accessing the service or the software, and people who create the software. And so those two constituents capture all the value, they capture, you know, the vendor selling the software captures maybe 10 or 20% of the value, and the rest of the value, I would would express it say as the customer is capturing the rest of the value. Most economists don't express value capture as capturable by an end user or a customer. I think that's a mistake. >> Jim, you're-- >> So now... >> Okay, Jim, your reaction to that, because there's an article went around this weekend from Motherboard. "The internet was built on free labor "of open source developers. "Is that sustainable?" So Jim, what's your reaction to JJ's comments about the interactions and the dynamic between value creation, value capture, free versus sustainable funding? >> Well if you can sort of mix both together, that's what I would like, I haven't really ever figured out how to make open source work in our business model, but I haven't really tried that hard. It's an intriguing concept for sure, particularly if we come up with APIs that are specific to say, local television or something like that, and maybe some special processes that do things that are of interest to the wider community. So it's something I do plan to look at because I do agree that if you, I mean we use open source, we use this thing called FFmpeg, and several other things, and we're really happy that there's people out there adding value to them, et cetera, and we have our own versions, et cetera, so we'd like to contribute to the community if we could figure out how. >> Sarbjeet, your reactions to JJ's thesis there? >> I think two things. I will comment on two different aspects. One is the lack of standards, and then open source becoming the standard, right. I think open source kind of projects take birth and life in its own, because we have lack of standard, 'cause these different vendors can't agree on standards. So remember we used to have service-oriented architecture, we have Microsoft pushing some standards from one side and IBM pushing from other, SOAP versus xCBL and XML, different sort of paradigms, right, but then REST API became the de facto standard, right, it just took over, I think what REST has done for software in last about 10 years or so, nothing has done that for us. >> well Kubernetes is right now looking pretty good. So if you look at JJ, Kubernetes, the movement you were really were pioneering on, it's having similar dynamic, I mean Kubernetes is becoming a forcing function for solidarity in the community of cloud native, as well as an actual interoperable orchestration layer for multiple clouds and other services. So JJ, your thoughts on how open source continues as some of these new technologies, like Kubernetes, continue to hit the scene. Is there any trajectory change in open source that you see, that you could share, I'd love to get your insights on what's next behind, you know, the rise of Kubernetes is happening, what's next? >> I think more abstractly from Kubernetes, we believe that if you just look at the rate of innovation as a primary factor for progress and forward change in the world, open source software has the highest rate of innovation of any technology creation phenomena, and as a consequence, we're seeing more standards emerge from the open source ecosystem, we're seeing more disruption happen from the open source ecosystem, we're seeing more new technology companies and new paradigms and shifts happen from the open source ecosystem, and kind of all progress across the largest, most difficult sort of compound, sensitive problems, influenced and kind of sourced from the open source ecosystem and the open source world overall. Whether it's chip design, machine learning or computing innovations or new types of architectures, or new types of developer paradigms, you know, biological breakthroughs, there's kind of things up and down the technology spectrum that have a lot to sort of thank open source for. We think that the future of technology and the future of software is really that open source is at the core, as opposed to the periphery or the edges, and so today, every software technology company, and cloud providers included, have closed proprietary cores, meaning that where the core is, the data path, the runtime, the core business logic of the company, today that core is proprietary software or closed source software, and yet what is also true, is at the edges, the wrappers, the sort of crust, the periphery of every technology company, we have lots of open source, we have client libraries and bindings and languages and integrations, configuration, UIs and so on, but the cores are proprietary. We think the following will happen over the next few decades. We think the future will gradually shift from closed proprietary cores to open cores, where instead of a proprietary core, an open core is where you have core open source software project, as the fundamental building block for the company. So for example, Hadoop caused the creation of MapR and Cloudera and Hortonworks, Spark caused the creation of Databricks, Kafka caused the creation of Confluent, Git caused the creation of GitHub and GitLab, and this type of commercial open source software model, where there's a core open source project as the kernel building block for the company, and then an extension of intellectual property or wrappers around that open source project, where you can derive value capture and charge for licensed product with the company, and impress customer, we think that model is where the future is headed, and this includes cloud providers, basically selling proprietary services that could be based on a mixture of open source projects, but perhaps not fundamentally on a core open source project. Now we think generally, like abstractly, with maybe somewhat of a reductionist explanation there, but that open core future is very likely, fundamentally because of the rate of innovation being the highest with the open source model in general. >> All right, that's great stuff. Jim, you're a historian of tech, you've lived it. Your thoughts on some of the emerging trends around cloud, because you're disrupting linear TV with Didja, in a new way using cloud technology. How do you see cloud evolving? >> Well, I think the long lines we discussed, certainly I think that's a really interesting model, and having the open source be the center of the universe, then figure out how to have maybe some proprietary stuff, if I can use that word, around it, that other people can take advantage of, but maybe you get the value capture and build a business on that, that makes a lot of sense, and could certainly fit in the TV industry if you will from where I sit... Bring services to businesses and consumers, so it's not like there's some reason it wouldn't work, you know, it's bound to, it's bound to figure out a way, and if you can get a whole mass of people around the world working on the core technology and if it is sort of unique to what mission of, or at least the marketplace you're going after, that could be pretty interesting, and that would be great to see a lot of different new mini-clouds, if you will, develop around that stuff would be pretty cool. >> Sarbjeet, I want you to talk about scale, because you also have experience working with Rackspace. Rackspace was early on, they were trying to build the cloud, and OpenStack came out of that, and guess what, the world was moving so fast, Amazon was a bullet train just flying down the tracks, and it just felt like Rackspace and their cloud, you know OpenStack, just couldn't keep up. So is scale an issue, and how do people compete against scale in your mind? >> I think scale is an issue, and software chops is an issue, so there's some patterns, right? So one pattern is that we tend to see that open source is now not very good at the application side. You will hardly see any applications being built as open source. And also on the extreme side, open source is pretty sort of lame if you will, at very core of the things, like OpenStack failed for that reason, right? But it's pretty good in the middle as Joseph said, right? So building pipes, building some platforms based on open source, so the hooks, integration, is pretty good there, actually. I think that pattern will continue. Hopefully it will go deeper into the core, which we want to see. The other pattern is I think the software chops, like one vendor has to lead the project for certain amount of time. If that project goes into sort of open, like anybody can grab it, lot of people contribute and sort of jump in very quickly, it tends to fail. That's what happened to, I think, OpenStack, and there were many other reasons behind that, but I think that was the main reason, and because we were smaller, and we didn't have that much software chops, I hate to say that, but then IBM could control like hundred parties a week, at the project >> They did, and look where they are. >> And so does HP, right? >> And look where they are. All right, so I'd love to have a Power Panel on open source, certainly JJ's been in the thick of it as well as other folks in the community. I want to just kind of end on lightweight question for you guys. What have you guys learned? Go down the line, start with Jim, Sarbjeet, and then JJ we'll finish with you. Share something that you've learned over the past three months that moved you or that people should know about in tech or cloud trends that's notable. What's something new that you've learned? >> In my case, it was really just spending some time in the last few months getting to know our end users a little bit better, consumers, and some of the impact that having free internet television has on their lives, and that's really motivating... (distorted speech) Something as simple as you might take for granted, but lower income people don't necessarily have a TV that works or a hotel room that has a TV that works, or heaven forbid they're homeless and all that, so it's really gratifying to me to see people sort of tuning back into their local media through television, just by offering it on their phone and laptops. >> And what are you going to do as a result of that? Take a different action, what's the next step for you, what's the action item? >> Well we're hoping, once our product gets filled out with the major networks, et cetera, that we actually provide a community attachment to it, so that we have over-the-air television channels is the main part of the app, and then a side part of the app could be any IP stream, from city council meetings to high schools, to colleges, to local community groups, local, even religious situations or festivals or whatever, and really try to tie that in. We'd really like to use local television as a way to strengthening all local media and local communities, that's the vision at least. >> It's a great mission you guys have at Didja, thanks for sharing that. Sarbjeet, what have learned over the past quarter, three months that was notable for you and the impact and something that changed you a little bit? >> What actually I have gravitated towards in last three to six months is the blockchain, actually. I was light on that, like what it can do for us, and is there really a thing behind it, and can we leverage it. I've seen more and more actually usage of that, and sort of full SCM, supply chain management and healthcare and some other sort of use cases if you will. I'm intrigued by it, and there's a lot of activity there. I think there's some legs behind it, so I'm excited about that. >> And are doing a blockchain project as a result, or are you still tire-kicking? >> No actually, I will play with it, I'm a practitioner, I play with it, I write code and play with it and see (Jim laughs) what does that level of effort it takes to do that, and as you know, I wrote the Alexa scale couple of weeks back, and play with AI and stuff like that. So I try to do that myself before I-- >> We're hoping blockchain helps even out the TV ad economy and gets rid of middle men and makes more trusting transactions between local businesses and stuff. At least I say that, I don't really know what I'm talking about. >> It sounds good though. You get yourself a new round of funding on that sound byte alone. JJ, what have you learned in the past couple months that's new to you and changed you or made you do something different? >> I've learned over the last few months, OSS Capital is a few months and change old, and so just kind of getting started on that, and it's really, I think potentially more than one decade, probably multi-decade kind of mostly consensus building effort. There's such a huge lack of consensus and agreement in the industry. It's a fascinatingly polarizing area, the sort of general topic of open source technology, economics, value creation, value capture. So my learnings over the past few months have just intensified in terms of the lack of consensus I've seen in the industry. So I'm trying to write a little bit more about observations there and sort of put thoughts out, and that's kind of been the biggest takeaway over the last few months for me. >> I'm sure you learned about all the lawyer conversations, setting up a fund, learnings there probably too right, (Jim laughs) I mean all the detail. All right, JJ, thanks so much, Sarbjeet, Jim, thanks for joining me on this Power Panel, cloud conversation impact, to entrepreneurship, open source. Jim Long, Sarbjeet Johal and Joseph Jacks, JJ, thanks for joining us, theCUBE Conversation here in Palo Alto, I'm John Furrier, thanks for watching. >> Thanks John. (lively classical music)

(bright symphony music) >> Hello, I'm John Furrier, the founder of SiliconANGLE Media and co-host of theCUBE. We're here in Paulo Alto at our studio here. I'm joining with Joseph Jacks, the founder and general partner of OSS Capital. Open Source Software Capital, is what OSS stands for. He's also the founder of KubeCon which now is part of the CNCF. It's a huge conference around Kubernetes. He's a cloud guy. He knows open source. Very well respected in the industry and also a great guest and friend of theCUBE, CUBE alumni. Joseph, great to see you. Also known as JJ. JJ, good to see you. >> Thank you for having me on again, John. >> Hey, great to have you come on. I know we've talked many times on theCUBE, but you've got some exciting news. You got a new firm, OSS Capital. Open Source Software, not operational support like a telco, but this is an investment opportunity where you're making investments. Congratulations. >> Thank you. >> So I know you can't talk about some of the specifics on the funds size, but you are actually going to go out, talk to entrepreneurs, make some equity investments. Around open source software. What's the thesis? How did you get here, why did you do it? What's motivating you, and what's the thesis? >> A lot of questions in there. Yeah, I mean this is a really profoundly huge year for open source software. On a bunch of different levels. I think the biggest kind of thing everyone anchors towards is GitHub being acquired by Microsoft. Just a couple of weeks ago, we had the two huge hadoop vendors join forces. That, I think, surprised a lot of people. MuleSoft, which is a big opensource middleware company, getting acquired by Salesforce just a year after going public. Just a huge outcome. I think one observation, just to sort of like summarize the year 2018, is actually, starting in January, almost on sort of like a monthly basis, we've observed a major sort of opensource software company outcome. And sort of kicking off the year, we had CoreOS getting acquired by Red Hat. Brandon and Alex, the founders over there, built a really interesting company in the Kubernetes ecosystem. And I think in February, Al Fresco, which is an open source content portal taking privatization outcome from a private equity firm, I believe in March we had Magento getting acquired by Adobe, which an open source based CMS. PHP CMS. So just a lot of activity for significant outcomes. Multibillion dollar outcomes of commercial open source companies. And open source software is something like 20 years old. 20 years in the making. And this year in particular, I've just seen just a huge amount of large scale outcomes that have been many years in the making from companies that have taken lots of venture funding. And in a lot of cases, sort of partially focused funding from different investors that have an affinity for open source software and sort of understand the uniqueness of the open source model when it's applied to business, when it's applied to company building. But more sort of opportunistic and sort of affinity oriented, as opposed to a pure focus. So that's kind of been part of the motivation. I'd say the more authentically compelling motivation for doing this is that it just needs to exist. This is sort of a model that is happening by necessity. We're seeing more and more software companies be open source software companies. So open source first. They're built in a distributed way. They're leveraging engineers and talent around the world. They're just part of this open source kind of philosophy. And they are fundamentally kind of commercial open source software companies. We felt that if you had a firm basically designed in a way to exclusively focus on those kind of companies, and where the firmware actually backed and supported by the founders of the largest commercial open source companies in the world before sort of the last decade. That could actually deliver a lot of value. So we've been sort of blogging a little bit about this. >> And you wrote a great post on it. I read about open source monetization. But I think one of the things I'm seeing as well that supports your thesis, and I like to get your reaction to it because I think this is something that's not really talked about, but open source is still young. I mean, you go back. I remember the days when we used to have to hide in the shadows to get licenses and pirate stuff and do all those crazy stuff. But now, it's only a couple decades away. The leaders that were investing were usually entrepreneurs that've been successful. The Rob Bearns, the Amar Wadhwa, the guy that did Spring. All these different open source. Linux, obviously, great success story. But there hasn't any been any institutional. Yeah, you got benchmark, other things, done some investments. A discipline around open source. Where open source is now table stakes in all software development. Cloud is scaling, scaling out globally. There's no real foc- There's never been a firm that's been focused on- Just open source from a commercial, while maintaining the purity and ethos of open source. I mean, is that. >> You agree? >> That's true. >> 100%, yeah. That's been the big part of creating the firm is aligning and solving for a pure focused structure. And I think what I'll say abstractly is this sort of venture capital, venture style approach to funding enterprise technology companies, software companies in general, has been to kind of find great entrepreneurs and in an abstract way that can build great technology companies. Can bring them to market, can sell them, and can scale them, and so on. And either create categories, or dominate existing categories, and disrupt incumbents, and so on. And I think while that has worked for quite a while, in the venture industry overall, in the 50, 60 years of the venture industry, lots of successful firms, I think what we're starting to see is a necessary shift toward accounting for the fundamental differences of opensource software as it relates to new technology getting created and going, and new software companies kind of coming into market. So we actually fundamentally believe that commercial open source software companies are fundamentally different. Functionally in almost every way, as compared to proprietary closed source software companies of the last 30 years. And the way we've sort of designed our firm and we'll about ten people pretty soon. We're just about a month in. We're growing the team quickly, but we're sort of a small, focused team. >> A ten's not focused small, I mean, I know venture firms that have two billion in management that don't have more than 20 people. >> Well, we have portfolio partners that are focused in different functional areas where commercial open source software companies have really fundamental differences. If you were to sort of stack rank, by function, where commercial open source software companies are really fundamentally different, sort of top to bottom. Legal would be, probably, the very top of the list. Right, in terms of license compliance management, structuring all the sort of protections and provisions around how intellectual property is actually shipped to and sold to customers. The legal licensing aspects. The commercial software licensing. This is quite a polarizing hot topic these days. The second big functional area where we have a portfolio partner focused on this is finance. Finance is another area where commercial open source software companies have to sort of behaviorally orient and apply that function very, very differently as compared to proprietary software companies. So we're crazy honored and excited to have world experts and very respected leaders in those different areas sort of helping to provide sort of different pillars of wisdom to our portfolio companies, our portfolio founders, in those different functional areas. And we provide a really focused kind of structure for them. >> Well I want to ask you the kind of question that kind of bridges the old way and new way, 'cause I definitely see you guys definitely being new and different, which is good. Or as Andy Jassy would say, you can be misunderstood for a while, but as you become successful, people will start understanding what you do. And that's a great example of Amazon. The pattern with success is traditionally the same. If we kind of encapsulate the difference between open source old and new, and that is you have something of value, and you're disrupting the market and collecting rents from it. Or revenue, or profit. So that's commercial, that's how businesses run. How are you guys going to disrupt with open source software the next generation value creation? We know how value's created, certainly in software that opensource has shown a path on how to create value in writing software if code is value and functionality's value. But to commercialize and create revenue, which is people paying something for something. That's a little bit different kind of value extraction from the value creation. So open source software can create value in functionality and value product. Now you bring it to the market, you get paid for it, you have to disrupt somebody, you have to create something. How are you looking at that? What's the vision of the creation, the extraction of value, who's disrupted, is it greenfield new opportunities? What's your vision? >> A lot of nuance and complexity in that question. What I would say is- >> Well, open source is creating products. >> Well, open source is the basis for creating products in a different kind of way. I'll go back to your question around let's just sort of maybe simplify it as the value creation and the value capture dynamics, right? We've sort of written a few posts about this, and it's subtle, but it's easy to understand if you look at it from a fundamental kind of perspective. We actually believe, and we'll be publishing research on this, and maybe even sort of more principled scientific, perhaps, even ways of looking at it. And then blog posts and research. We believe that open source software will always generate or create orders of magnitude more value than any constituent can capture. Right, and that's a fundamental way of looking at it. So if you see how cloud providers are capturing value that open source creates, whether it's Elasticsearch, or Postgres, or MySQL or Hadoop. And then commercial open source software companies that capture value that open source software creates, whether it's companies like Confluent around Kafka, or Cloudera around Hadoop, or Databricks around Apache Spark. Or whether it's the creators of those projects. The creators of Spark and Hadoop and Elasticsearch, sometimes many of them are the founders of those companies I mentioned, and sometimes they're not. We just believe regardless of how that sort of value is captured by the cloud providers, the commercial vendors, or the creators, the value created relative to the value captured will always be orders and orders of magnitude greater. And this is expressed in another way, which this may be easier to understand, it's a sort of reinforcing this kind of assertion that there's orders of magnitude value created far greater than what can be captured. If you were to do a survey, which we're currently in the process of doing, and I'm happy to sort of say that publicly for the first time here, of all the commercial open source software companies that have projects with large significant adoption, whether, say for example, it's Docker, with millions of users, or Apache Hadoop. How many Hadoop deployments there are. How many customers' companies are there running Hadoop deployments. Or it may be even MySQL. How many MySQL installations are there. And then you were to sort of survey those companies and see how many end users are there relative to how many customers are paying for the usage of the project. It would probably be something like if there were a million users of a given project, the company behind that project or the cloud provider, or say the end user, the developer behind the project, is unlikely to capture more than, say, 1% or a couple percent of those end users to companies, to paying companies, to paying customers. And many times, that's high. Many times, 1% to 2% is very high. Often, what we've seen actually anecdotally, and we're doing principled research around this, and we'll have data here across a large number of companies, many times it's a fraction of 1%. Which is just sort of maybe sometimes 10% of 1%, or even smaller. >> So the practitioners will be making more money than the actual vendors? >> Absolutely right. End users and practitioners always stand to benefit far greater because of the fundamental nature of open source. It's permissionless, it's disaggregated, the value creation dynamics are untethered, and it is fundamentally freely available to use, freely available to contribute to, with different constraints based on the license. However, all those things are sort of like disaggregating the creating of technology into sort of an unbounded network. And that's really, really incredible. >> Okay, so first of all, I agree with your premise 100%. We've seen it with CUBE, where videos are free. >> And that's a good thing. All those things are good. >> And Dave Vellante says this all the time on theCUBE. And we actually pointed this out and called this in the Hadoop ecosystem in 2012. In fact, we actually said that on theCUBE, and it turned out to be true, 'cause look at Hortonworks and Cloudera had to merge because, again, the market changed very quickly >> Value Creation. >> Because value >> Was created around them in the immediate cloud, etc. So the question is, that changes the valuation mechanisms. So if this true, which we believe it is. Just say it is. Then the traditional net present value cash flow metric of the value of the firm, not your firm, but, like, if I'm an open source firm, I'm only one portion of the extraction. I'm a supplier, and I'm an enabler, the valuation on cash flow might not be as great as the real impact. So the question I have for you, have you thought about the valuation? 'Cause now you're thinking about bigger construct community network effects. These are new dynamics. I don't think anyone's actually crunched a valuation model around this. So if someone knew that, say for example, an open source project created all this value, and they weren't necessarily harvesting it from a cash flow perspective, there might be other ways to monetize it. Have you though about that, and what's your reaction to that concept? 'Cause capitalism would kind of shake down the system. 'Cause why would someone be motivated to participate if they're not capturing any value? So if the value shifts, are they still going to be able to participate? You follow the logic I'm trying to- >> I definitely do. I think what I would say to that is we expect and we encourage and we will absolutely heavily invest in more business model innovation in the area of open source. So what I mean by that is, and it's important to sort of qualify a few things there. There's a huge amount of polarization and lack of consensus, lack of industry consensus on what it actually means to have or implement an open source based business model. In fact there's a lot of people who just sort of point blankedly assert that an opensource business model does not exist. We believe that many business models for monetizing and commercializing open source exist. We've blogged and written about a few of them. Their services and training and support. There's open core, which is very effective in sort of a spectrum of ways to implement open core. Around the core, you can have a thin crust or a thick crust. There's SAS. There are hardware based distribution models, things like Sourcefire, and Cumulus Networks. And there are also network based approaches. For example, project called Storj or Stor-J. Being developed and run now by Ben Golub, who's the former CEO of Docker. >> CUBE alumni. >> Ben's really great open source veteran. This is a network, kind of decentralized network based approach of sort of right sizing the production and consumption of the resource of a storage based open source project in a decentralized network. So those are sort of four or five ways to commercializing value, however, four or five ways of commercializing value, however what we believe is that there will be more business model innovation. There will be more developments around how you can better capture more, or in different ways, the value that open source creates. However, what I will say though, is it is unrealistic to expect two things. It is unrealistic and, in fact, unfair to expect that any of those constituents will contribute back to open source proportional to the value that they received from it, or the benefit, and I'm actually paraphrasing Doug Cutting there, who tweeted this a couple of years ago. Very profoundly deep, wise tweet, which I very strongly agree with. And it is also unrealistic to expect a second thing, which is that any of those constituents can capture a material portion of the value that open source creates, which I would assert is many trillions of dollars, perhaps tens of trillions of dollars. It's really hard to quantify that. And it's not just dollars in economic sense, it's dollars in productivity time saved, new markets, new areas, and so on. >> Yeah, I think this is interesting, and I think that we'll be an open book at that. But I will say that what I've observed in looking through all these CUBE interviews, I think that business model innovation absolutely is something that is an IP. >> We need it. Well, it's now intellectual property, the business model isn't, hey I went to business school, learned this at Babson or Harvard, I learned this business model. We're going to do SAS premium. Okay, I get that. There's going to be very interesting new innovations coming, and I think that's the new IP. 'Cause open source, if it's community based, there's going to be formulas. So that's going to be really inter- Okay, so now let's get back to actual funding itself. You guys are doing early stage. Can you take us through the approach? >> We're very focused on early stage, investing, and backing teams that are, just sort of welcoming the idea of a commercial entity around their open source project. Or building a business fundamentally dependent on an open source project or maybe even more than one. The reason for that is this is really where there's a lot of structural inefficiency in supporting and backing those types of founders. >> I think one of the things with ... is with that acquisition. They were pure on the open source side, doing a great job, didn't want to push the business model too hard because the open source, let's face it, you got people like, eh, I don't want to get caught on the business side, and get revenue, perverse incentives might come up, or fear of incentives that might be different or not aligned. Was a great a value. >> I think so. >> So Red Hat got a steal on that one. But as you go forward, there's going to be certainly a lot more stuff. We're seeing a lot of it now in CNCF, for instance. I want to get your thoughts on this because, being the co founder of KubeCon, and donating it to the CNCF, Kubernetes is the hottest thing on the planet, as we talked about many years ago. What's your take on that, now? I see exciting things happening. What is the impact of Kubernetes, in your opinion, to the world, and where do you see that evolving rapidly, and where is the focus here as the people should be paying attention to? >> I think that Kubernetes replaces EC2. Kubernetes is a disaggregated API for distributed computing anywhere. And it happens to be portable and able to run on any kind of computer infrastructure, which sort of makes it like a liquid disaggregated EC2-like API. Which a lot of people have been sort of chasing and trying to implement for many years with things like OpenStack or Eucalyptus. But interestingly, Kubernetes is sort of the right abstraction for distributed computing, because it meets people where they are architecturally. It's sort of aligned with this current movement around distributed systems first designs. Microservices, packaging things in small compartmentalized units. >> Good for integrating of existing stuff. >> Absolutely, and it's very composable, un-opinionated architecturally. So you can sort of take an application and structure it in any given way, and as long as it has this sort of isolation boundary of a container, you can run it on Kubernetes without needing to sort of retrofit the architecture, which is really awesome. I think Kubernetes is a foundational part of the next kind of computing paradigm in the same way that Linux was foundational to the computing paradigm that gave rise to the internet. We had commodity hardware meeting open source based sort of cost reduction and efficiency, which really Linux enabled, and the movement toward scale out data center infrastructure that supported the Internet's sort of maturity and infrastructure. I think we're starting to see the same type of repeat effect thanks to Kubernetes basically being really well received by engineers, by the cloud providers. It's now the universal sort of standard for running container based applications on the different cloud providers. >> And think having the non-technical opinion posture, as you said, architectural posture, allows it to be compatible with a new kind of heterogeneous. >> Heterogeneity is critical. >> Heterogeneity is key, 'cause it's not just within the environment, it's also within each vendor, or customer has more heterogeneity. So, okay, now that's key. So multi cloud, I want to get your thoughts on multi cloud, because now this goes into some of things that might build on top of if Kubernetes continues to go down the road that you say it does. Then the next question is, stateful applications, service meshes. >> A lot of buzz words. A lot of buzz words in there. Stateful application's real because at a certain point in time, you have a maturity curve with critical infrastructure that starts to become appealing for stateful mission critical storage systems, which is typically where you have all the crown jewels of a given company's infrastructure, whether it's a transactional system, or reading and writing core customer, or financial service information, or whatever it is. So Kubernetes' starting to hit this maturity curve where people are migrating really serious mission critical storage workloads onto that platform. And obviously we're going to start to see even more critical work loads. We're starting to see Edge workloads because Kubernetes is a pretty low footprint system, so you can run it on Edge devices, you can even run it on microcontrollers. We're sort of past the experimental, you know, fun and games was Raspberry Pi, sort of towers, and people actually legitimately doing real world Edge kind of deployments with Kubernetes. We're absolutely starting to see multi-geo, multi-replication, multi-cloud sort of style architectures becoming real, as well. Because Kubernetes is this API that the industry's agreeing upon sufficiently. We actually have agreement around this sort of surface area for distributed system style computing that if cloud providers can actually standardize on in a way that lets application specific vendors or new types of application deployment models innovate further, then we can really unlock this sort of tight coupling of proprietary services inside cloud providers and disaggregate it. Which is really exciting, and I forget the Netscape, Jim Barksdale. Bundling, un-bundling. We're starting to see the un-bundling of proprietary cloud computing service API's. Things like Kinesis, and ALB and ELB and proprietary storage services, and these other sticky services get un-bundled because of two big things. Open source, obviously, we have open source alternative data paths. And then we have Kubernetes which allows us to sort of disaggregate things out pretty easily. >> I want to hear your thoughts, one final concept, before we break, 'cause I was having a private conversation with three people besides myself. A big time CIO of a company that if I said the name everyone would go, oh my god, that guy is huge, he's seen it all going back many, many ways. Currently done a lot of innovation. A hardcore network chip guy who knows networking, old school infrastructure. And then a cloud native application founder who knows a lot about software development and is state-of-the-art cloud native. So cloud native, all experienced, old-school, kind of about my age, a cloud native app developer, a big time CIO, and a chip networking kind of infrastructure guy. And we're talking, and one thing that came out, I want to get you thoughts on this, he says, so what's going on with DevOps, how do you see this service mesh, is a stay for (mumbles) on top of the stack, no stacks, horizontally scalable. And the comment that came out was storage and networking have had this relationship with everything since day one. Network moves a packet from point A to point B, and nothing happens in between, maybe some inspection. And storage goes from here now to the then, because you store it. He goes, that premise moves up the stacks, so then the cloud native guy goes, well that's what's happening up at the top, there's a lot of moving things around, workloads and or services, provisioning services, and then from now to then state. In real time. And what dawned on the next conversation the CIO goes, well this is exactly our challenge. We have under the hood infrastructure being programmable, >> We're having some trouble with the connection. Please try again. >> My phone's calling me. >> Programmable connections. >> So you got the programmable on the top of the stack too, so the CIO said, that's exactly the problem we're trying to solve. We're trying to solve some of these network storage concepts now at an application level. Your thoughts to that. >> Well, I think if I could tease apart everything you just said, which is profound synthesis of a lot of different things, I think we've started to see application logic leak out of application code itself into dedicated layers that are really good at doing one specific thing. So traditionally we had some crud style kind of behavioral semantics implemented around business logic. And then, inside of that, you also had libraries for doing connectivity and lookups and service discovery and locking and key management and encryption and coordination with other types of applications. And all that stuff was sort of shoved into the single big application binary. And now, we're starting to see all those language runtime specific parts of application code sort of crack or leak out into these dedicated, highly scalable, Unix philosophy oriented sort of like layers. So things like Envoy are really just built for the sort of nervous system layer of application communication fabric up and down the layer two through layer seven sort of protocol transport stack, which is really profound. We're seeing things like Vault from Hashicorp handle secure key storage persistence of application dedication, authorization, metadata and information to sort of access different systems and end points. And that's a dedicated sort of stateful layer that you can sort of fragment out and delegate sort of application specific functionality to, which is really great for scalability reasons. And on, and on, and on. So we've started to see that, and I think one way of looking at that is it's a cycle. It's the sort of bundling and un-bundling aspect. >> One of the granny level services are getting a really low level- >> Yeah, it's a sort of like bundling and un-bundling and so we've got all this un-bundling happening out of application code to these dedicated layers. The bundling back may happen. I've actually seen a few Bay Area companies go like, we're going back to the monolith 'cause it actually gives us lots of efficiencies in things that we though were trade offs before. We're actually comfortable with a big monorepo, and one or two core languages, and we're going to build everything into these big binaries, and everyone's going to sort of live in the same source code repository and break things out through folders or whatever. There's a lot of really interesting things. I don't want to say we're sort of clear on where this bundling, un-bundling is happening, but I do think that there's a lot of un-bundling happening right now. And there's a lot of opportunity there. >> And the open source, obviously, driving it. So final question for you, how many deals have you done? Can you talk a little bit about the firm? And exciting things and plans that you have going forward. >> Yeah, we're going to be making a lot of announcements over the next few months, and we're, I guess, extremely thrilled. I don't want to say overwhelmed, 'cause we're able to handle all of the volume and inquiries and inbound interest. We're really honored and thrilled by the reception over the last couple weeks from announcing the firm on the first of October, sort of before the Hortonworks Cloudera merger. The JFrog funding announcement that week. The Elastic IPO. Just a lot of really awesome things happened that week. This is obviously before Microsoft open sourced all their patents. We'll be announcing more investments that we've made. We announced our first one on the first of October as well with the announcement of the firm. We've made a good number of investments. We're not able to talk to much about our first initiative, but you'll hear more about that in the near future. >> Well, we're excited. I think it's the timing's perfect. I know you've been working on this kind of vision for a while, and I think it's really great timing. Congratulations, JJ >> Thank you so much. Thanks for having me on. >> Joesph Jacks, also known as JJ, founder and general partner of OSS Capital, Open Source Software Capital, co founder of KubeCon, which is now part of the CNCF. A real great player in the community and the ecosystem, great to have him on theCUBE, thanks for coming in. I'm John Furrier, thanks for watching. >> Thanks, John. (bright symphony music)

>> Announcer: Live, from Copenhagen, Denmark, it's theCUBE. Covering KubeCon and CloudNativeCon Europe 2018. Brought to you by the Cloud Native Computing Foundation and its Ecosystem Partners. >> Well everyone, welcome back to the live coverage of theCUBE here in Copenhagen, Denmark for KubeCon, Kubernetes Con 2018, part of the CNCF, Cloud Native Compute Foundation, part of the Linux Foundation. I'm John Furrier with Lauren Cooney, the founder of Spark Labs, breaking down day two, wrapping up our coverage of KubeCon and all the success that we've seen with Kubernetes, I thought it would be really appropriate to bring on the cofounder of KubeCon originally, Joseph Jacks, known as JJ in the industry, a good friend of theCUBE and part of the early formation of what is now Cloud Native. We were all riffing on that at the time. welcome back to theCUBE, great to see you. >> Thank you for having me John. >> So, for the story, for the folks out there, you know Cloud Native was really seen by the devops community, and infrastructure code was no secret to the insiders in the timeframes from 2010 through 2015, 16 timeframe, but really it was an open stack summit. A lot of people were kind of like, hey, you know, Google's got Kubernetes, they're going to open it up and this could be a real game changer, container, Docker was flying off the shelves. So we just kind of saw, right, and you were there and we were talking so there was a group of us. You were one of them. And you founded KubeCon, and bolted into the, at that time, the satellite Linux Foundation events, and then you pass it off as a good community citizen to the CNCF, so I wanted to just make sure that people knew that. What a great success. What's your impression? I mean, are you blown away? >> I am definitely blown away. I mean I think the size and scale of the European audience is remarkable. We had something like slightly less than half this in Austin last year. So to see more than that come here in Europe I think shows the global kind of growth curve as well as like, I think, Dan and someone else was asking sort of raise your hand if you've been to Kubecon Austin and very few actually, so there's a lot of new people showing up in Europe. I think it just shows the demand-- >> And Dan's been traveling around. I've seen him in China, some events I've been to. >> Joseph: All over. >> He's really working hard so props to him. We gave him some great props earlier. But he also told us Shanghai is coming online. >> Joseph: Yeah. >> So you got Shanghai, you to Barcelona next year for the European show, and of course Seattle. This is a community celebrating right now because there's a lot of high fives going on right now because there's a lot of cool, we've got some sort of core standard, defacto standard, now let's go to work. What are you working on now? You got a stealth startup? Share a little bit about it. I know you don't want to give the details out, but where is it kind of above the stack? Where you going to be playing? >> Sure, so we're not talking too much in terms of specifics and we're pretty stealthy, but I can tell you what I'm personally very excited about in terms of where Kubernetes is going and kind of where this ecosystem is starting to mature for practitioners, for enterprises. So one of the things that I think Kubernetes is starting to bring to bear is this idea of commoditizing distributed systems for everyday developers, for everyday enterprises. And I think that that is sort of the first time in sort of maybe, maybe the history of software development, software engineering and building applications, we're standardizing on a set of primitives, a set of building blocks for distributed system style programming. You know we had in previous eras things like Erlang and fault tolerant programming and frameworks, but those were sort of like pocketed into different programming communities and different types of stacks. I think Kubernetes is the one sort of horizontal technology that the industry's adopting and it's giving us these amazing properties, so I think some of the things that we're focusing on or excited about involve sort of the programming layer on top of Kubernetes in simplifying the experience of kind of bringing all stateful and enterprise workloads and different types of application paradigms natively into Kubernetes without requiring a developer to really understand and learn the Kubernetes primitives themselves. >> That's next level infrastructure as code. Yeah so as Kubernetes becomes more successful, as Kubernetes succeeds at a larger and larger scale, people simply shouldn't have to know or understand the internals. There's a lot of people, I think Kelsey and a few other people, started to talk about Kubernetes as the Linux kernel of distributed computing or distributed systems, and I think that's a really great way of looking at it. You know, do programmers make file system calls directly when they're building their applications? Do they script directly against the kernel for maybe some very high performance things. But generally speaking when you're writing a service or you're writing a microservice or some business logic, you're writing at a higher level of abstraction and a language that's doing some IO and maybe some reading and writing files, but you're using higher level abstractions. So I think by the same token, the focus today with Kubernetes is people are learning this API. I think over time people are going to be programming against that API at a higher level. And what are you doing here, the show? Obviously you're (mumbles) so you're doing some (mumbles) intelligence. Conversations you've been in, can you share your opinion of what's going on here? Your thoughts on the content program, the architecture, the decisions they've made. >> I think we've just, so lots of questions in there. What am I doing here? I just get so energized and I'm so, I just get reinvigorated kind of being here and talking to people and it's just super cool to see a lot of old faces, people who've been here for a while, and you know, one of the things that excites me, and this is just like proof that the event's gotten so huge. I walk around and I see a lot of familiar faces, but more than 80, 90% of people I've never seen before, and I'm like wow this has like gotten really super huge mainstream. Talking with some customers, getting a good sense of kind of what's going on. I think we've seen two really huge kind of trends come out of the event. One is this idea of multicloud sort of as a focus area, and you've talked with Bassam at Upbound and the sort of multicloud control plane, kind of need and demand out there in the community and the user base. I think what Bassam's doing is extremely exciting. The other, so multicloud is a really big paradigm that most companies are sort of prioritizing. Kubernetes is available now on all the cloud providers, but how do we actually adopt it in a way that is agnostic to any cloud provider service. That's one really big trend. The second big thing that I think we're starting to see, just kind of across a lot of talks is taking the Kubernetes API and extending it and wrapping it around stateful applications and stateful workloads, and being able to sort of program that API. And so we saw the announcement from Red Hat on the operator framework. We've seen projects like Kube Builder and other things that are really about sort of building native custom Kubernetes APIs for your applications. So extensibility, using the Kubernetes API as a building block, and then multicloud. I think those are really two huge trends happening here. >> What is your view on, I'm actually going to put you on test here. So Red Hat made a bet on Kubernetes years ago when it was not obvious to a lot of the other big wales. >> Joseph: From the very beginning really. >> Yeah from the very beginning. And that paid off huge for Red Hat as an example. So the question is, what bets should people be making if you had to lay down some thought leadership on this here, 'cause you obviously are in the middle of it and been part of the beginning. There's some bets to be made. What are the bets that the IBMs and the HPs and the Cisco's and the big players have to make and what are the bets the startups have to make? >> Well yeah, there's two angles to that. I mean, I think the investment startups are making, are different set of investments and motivated differently than the multinational, huge, you know, technology companies that have billions of dollars. I think in the startup category, startups just should really embrace Kubernetes for speeding the way they build reliable and scalable applications. I think really from the very beginning Kubernetes is becoming kind of compelling and reasonable even at a very small scale, like for two or three node environment. It's becoming very easy to run and install and manage. Of course it gives you a lot of really great properties in terms of actually running, building your systems, adopting microservices, and scaling out your application. And that's what's sort of like a direct end user use case, startups, kind of building their business, building their stack on Kubernetes. We see companies building products on top of Kubernetes. You see a lot of them here on the expo floor. That's a different type of vendor startup ecosystem. I think there's lots of opportunities there. For the big multinationals, I think one really interesting thing that hasn't really quite been done yet, is sort of treating Kubernetes as a first-class citizen as opposed to a way to commercialize and enter a new market. I think one of the default ways large technology companies tend to look at something hypergrowth like Kubernetes and TensorFlow and other projects is wrapping around it and commercializing in some way, and I think a deeper more strategic path for large companies could be to really embed Kubernetes in the core kind of crown jewel IP assets that they have. So I'll give you an example, like, for let's just take SAP, I'll just pick on SAP randomly, for no reason. This is one of the largest enterprise software companies in the world. I would encourage the co-CEOs of SAP, for example. >> John: There's only one CEO now. >> Is there one CEO now? Okay. >> John: Snabe left. It's now (drowned out by talking). >> Oh, okay, gotcha. I haven't been keeping up on the SAP... But let's just say, you know, a CEO boardroom level discussion of replatforming the entire enterprise application stack on something like Kubernetes could deliver a ton of really core meaningful benefits to their business. And I don't think like deep super strategic investments like that at that level are being made quite yet. I think at a certain point in time in the future they'll probably start to be made that way. But that's how I would like look at smart investments on the bigger scale. >> We're not seeing scale yet with Kubernetes, just the toe is in the water. >> I think we're starting to see scale, John. I think we are. >> John: What's the scale number in clusters? >> I'll give you the best example, which came up today, and actually really surprised me which I think was a super compelling example. The largest retailer in China, so essentially the Amazon of China, JD.com, is running in production for years now at 20,000 compute nodes with Kubernetes, and their largest cluster is a 5,000 node cluster. And so this is pushing the boundary of the sort of production-- >> And I think that may be the biggest one I've heard. >> Yeah, that's certainly, I mean for a disclosed user that's pretty huge. We're starting to see people actually talk publicly about this which is remarkable. And there are huge deployments out there. >> We saw Tyler Jewell come on from WSO2. He's got a new thing called Ballerina. New programming language, have you seen that? >> Joseph: I have, I have. >> Thoughts on that? What's your thoughts on that? >> You know, I think that, so I won't make any particular specific comments on Ballerina, I'm not extremely informed on it. I did play with a little bit, I don't want to give any of my opinions, but what I'd say, and I think Tyler actually mentioned this, one of the things that I believe is going to be a big deal in the coming years, is so, trying to think of Kubernetes as an implementation detail, as the kernel, do you interact directly with that? Do you learn that interface directly? Are you sort of kind of optimizing your application to be sort of natively aware of those abstractions? I think the answer to all of those questions is no, and Kubernetes is sort of delegated as a compiler target, and so frankly like directionally speaking, I think what Ballerina's sort of design is aspiring towards is the right one. Compile time abstraction for building distributed systems is probably the next logical progression. I like to think of, and I think Brendan Burns has started to talk about this over the last year or two. Everyone's writing assembly code 'cause we're swimming yaml and configuration based designs and systems. You know, sort of pseudodeclarative, but more imperative in static configurations. When in reality we shouldn't be writing these assembly artifacts. We should be delegating all of this complexity to a compiler in the same way that you know, we went from assembly to C to higher level languages. So I think over time that starts to make a lot of sense, and we're going to see a lot of innovation here probably. >> What's your take on the community formation? Obviously, it's growing, so, any observations, any insight for the folks watching what's happening in the community, patterns, trends you'd see, like, don't like. >> I think we could do a better job of reducing politics amongst the really sort of senior community leaders, particularly who have incentives behind their sort of agendas and sort of opinions, since they work for various, you know, large and small companies. >> Yeah, who horse in this race. >> Sure, and there's, whether they're perverse incentives or not, I think net the project has such a high quality genuine, like humble, focused group of people leading it that there isn't much pollution and negativity there. But I think there could be a higher standard in some cases. Since the project is so huge and there are so many very fast moving areas of evolution, there tends to be sort of a fast curve toward many cooks being in the kitchen, you know, when new things materialize and I think that could be better handled. But positive side, I think like the project is becoming incredibly diverse. I just get super excited to see Aparna from Google leading the project at Google, both on the hosted Saas offering and the Kubernetes project. People like Liz and others. And I just think it's an awesome, welcoming, super diverse community. And people should really highlight that more. 'Cause I think it's a unique asset of the project. >> Well you're involved in some deep history. I think we're going to be looking this as moment where there was once a KubeCon that was not part of the CNCF, and you know, you did the right thing, did a good thing. You could have kept it to yourself and made some good cash. >> It's definitely gotten really big, and it's way beyond me now at this point. >> Those guys did a good job with CNCF. >> They're doing phenomenal. I think vast majority of the credit, at this scale, goes to Chris Anasik and Dan Conn, and the events team at the Linux Foundation, CNCF, and obviously Kelsey and Liz and Michelle Noorali and many others. But blood, sweat, and tears. It's no small feat pulling off an event like this. You know, corralling the CFP process, coordinating speakers, setting the themes, it's a really huge job. >> And now they got to deal with all the community, licenses, Lauren your thoughts? >> Well they're consistent across Apache v2 I believe is what Dan said, so all the projects under the CNCF are consistently licensed. So I think that's great. I think they actually have it together there. You know, I do share your concerns about the politics that are going on a little bit back and forth, the high level, I tend to look back at history a little bit, and for those of us that remember JBoss and the JBoss fork, we're a little bit nervous, right? So I think that it's important to take a look at that and make sure that that doesn't happen. Also, you know, open stack and the stuff that we've talked about before with distros coming out or too many distros going to be hitting the street, and how do we keep that more narrow focused, so this can go across-- >> Yeah, I started this, I like to list rank and iterate things, and I started with this sheet of all the vendors, you know, all the Kubernetes vendors, and then Linux Foundation, or CNCF took it over, and they've got a phenomenal sort of conformance testing and sort of compliance versioning sheet, which lists all the vendors and certification status and updates and so on and I think there's 50 or 60 companies. On one hand I think that's great, because it's more innovation, lots of service providers and offerings, but there is a concern that there might be some fragmentation, but again, this is a really big area of focus, and I think it's being addressed. Yeah, I think the right ones will end up winning, right? >> Joseph: Right, for sure. >> and that's what's going to be key. >> Joseph: Healthy competition. >> Yes. >> All right final question. Let's go around the horn. We'll start with you JJ, wrapping up KubeCon 2018, your thoughts, summary, what's happened here? What will we talk about next year about what happened this week in Denmark? >> I think this week in Denmark has been a huge turning point for the growth in Europe and sort of proof that Kubernetes is on like this unstoppable inflection, growth curve. We usually see a smaller audience here in Europe, relative to the domestic event before it. And we're just seeing the numbers get bigger and bigger. I think looking back we're also going to see just the quality of end users and the end user community and more production success stories starting to become front and center, which I think is really awesome. There's lots of vendors here. But I do believe we have a huge representation of end users and companies actually sharing what they're doing pragmatically and really changing their businesses from Financial Times to Cern and physics projects, and you know, JD and other huge companies. I think that's just really awesome. That's a unique thing of the Kubernetes project. There's some hugely transformative companies doing awesome things out there. >> Lauren your thoughts, summary of the week in Denmark? >> I think it's been awesome. There's so much innovation happening here and I don't want to overuse that word 'cause I think it's kind of BS at some point, but really these companies are doing new things, and they're taking this to new levels. I think that hearing about the excitement of the folks that are coming here to actually learn about Kubernetes is phenomenal, and they're going to bring that back into their companies, and you're going to see a lot more actually coming to Europe next year. I also true multicloud would be phenomenal. I would love that if you could actually glue those platforms together, per se. That's really what I'm looking for. But also security. I think security, there needs to be a security seg. We talked to customers earlier. That's something they want to see. I think that that needs to be something that's brought to the table. >> That's awesome. My view is very simple. You know I think they've done a good job in CNCF and Linux Foundation, the team, building the ecosystem, keeping the governance and the technical and the content piece separate. I think they did a good job of showing the future state that we'd like to get to, which is true multicloud, workload portability, those things still out of reach in my opinion, but they did a great job of keeping the tight core. And to me, when I hear words like defacto standard I think of major inflection points where industries have moved big time. You think of internetworking, you think of the web, you think of these moments where that small little tweak created massive new brands and created a disruptor enabler that just created, changed the game. We saw Cisco coming out of that movement of IP with routers you're seeing 3Com come out of that world. I think that this change, this new little nuance called Kubernetes is going to be absolutely a defacto standard. I think it's definitely an inflection point and you're going to see startups come up with new ideas really fast in a new way, in a new modern global architecture, new startups, and I think people are going to be blown away. I think you're going to see fast rising growth companies. I think it's going to be an investment opportunity whether it's token economics or a venture backer private equity play. You're going to see people come out of the wood work, real smart entrepreneur. I think this is what people have been waiting for in the industry so I mean, I'm just super excited. And so thanks for coming on. >> Thank you for everything you do for the community. I think you truly extract the signal from the noise. I'm really excited to see you keep coming to the show, so it's really awesome. >> I appreciate your support, and again we're co-developing content in the open. Lauren great to host with you this week. >> Thank you, it's been awesome. >> And you got a great new venture, high five there. High five to the founder of KubeCon. This is theCUBE, not to be confused with KubeCon. And we're theCUBE, C-U-B-E. I'm John Furrier, thanks for watching. It's a wrap of day two global coverage here exclusively for KubeCon 2018, CNCF and the Linux Foundation. Thanks for watching. (techno music)

>> Announcer: From New York, it's theCube. Covering Escape/19. (techno music) >> Yeah, welcome back to theCube's coverage here in New York City for the first ever inaugural multicloud conference called Escape 2019, escape, we're in New York, we're not escaping from New York, we're escaping from the cloud. Jim Walker, Vice President of Product Marketing at Cockroach Labs, the custodian/founders of Cockroach Database. Welcome back, good to see you. >> Congratulations on your new role, new gig. Been there for a while? >> Yeah it's been a while since I've seen you, John, I've jumped out of the data space and into Kubernetes, and so, yeah, I landed at Cockroach Labs about a year ago. And having fun. >> It's interesting, the game is still the same, data is still the same as a value proposition, but software. >> Yeah. >> Data is now code, data is looking, interacting with software, data control planes, data layers, data lakes. All this is an evolution of stuff we were talking about back in the open source days at Hortonworks. The data is in motion, data in flight, data at rest, data is continuing to be critical in automation, security, every single app. >> Yeah, it's at the center of the big battle right now, right, there's this like... I just sense there's a larger battle going on for the platform right now, and the platform is being battled out by these large public cloud providers, and it's who can get compute, who can get actually, you know, people, residents in their cloud. Data has always been the centerpiece of that. Data is gravity, if it was on, before it was on-premise, so the battle was in-house at all these people and now it's like how do we get this stuff to move over. >> Yeah, we were talking before you came on camera, it helps we talk online a lot, and have a lot of connected friends in the cloud native space, but now that Cloud 2.0 has arrived, where it's enterprise hybrid, people are starting to get excited about that, you're seeing the re-platformization or refactoring or whatever word you want to use, a modern enterprise architecture, that has the best of cloud native, has the best of what the enterprise used to do with comput-- like mini-computers, whatnot, now packaged up an operating model. This modernization trend is hitting everything, note, developers, security, this is kind of where you're playing right now. Look what Google's done with Spanner database and where that's all come from in these kinds of large-scale data problems. Modernization's here, what's your take on this? >> Yeah, I know this is modernization, but it's stuff we've been doing for a long time. It's like, you know, I was talking to Steve Mulaney earlier, Steve's brilliant, right, and Steve's talking about 1992 we saw this transition to kind of client server. I've never seen anything like this trans... This transition and this modernization is much bigger than any of the other trends that we've been through. Back when we were talking before it was the Hadoop game, and we were talking modern data architecture, how do we actually transform the way we thought about data from these kind of single stovepipes of data into larger data lakes and this sort of thing. That was the beginning. What we're seeing this time though is a massive transformation up and down the stack of which data is one huge, massive piece of that. And as we know, man, data has gravity and it's at the center of this battle again. >> What's your definition of multicloud? We're at the first ever multicloud conference, what is multicloud? >> You know I get asked this a fair amount, so as I was looking for speakers it was like, "Well, what do you mean, a multicloud conference, what does that even mean?" There's a lot of people, multicloud unbelievers. I think we already live in a multicloud world. I think hybrid cloud is just multicloud. I talked to a lot of people through the CFP process for the conference. I had guys who were running edge computing platforms saying, "Talk to me about this", I'm like, "Well, if you look at it, it's just servers, they're just servers that are everywhere" and actually, how do we actually start to attach all this stuff. It's all multicloud, you know what is the cloud but a bunch of different servers that somebody else owns? You may own them, you may not. The challenge is going to be how do we tie all that together? >> Computer history has proven, if anything, heterogeneous environments, multi-vendor. You can go back and talk about, the comment about the client server, I mean, that was a real threat to the mainframe. Internetworking completely changed the game. At that time PCs were exploding in growth, and multi-vendor was a big buzzword. And that was the reality, you had to compete and service multiple vendors in an environment. >> Yeah, and-- >> Multiple cloud is just multiple vendors. >> John, it's called the multicloud conference, and you know my friend Joseph Jacks, I mean Joseph and I have a lot of conversations about things, you know, and he's brilliant in terms of how he thinks about commercial open source and how these things are, and you know I really played around with changing the name of this to the open and independent cloud conference, because that's really what this is about, it's about how do we have a conversation, in the open, about how we open up the cloud? I just thought, I was a little frustrated with some of the conferences I went to because, I think people are talking about this, but it's not lip service, it's just difficult to talk about it in a broader sense. >> Well, I'm really glad you did this because I've been calling multicloud bullshit on theCube for over a year, Stu and I have debates about this, and you know, putting-- >> I watched. >> Okay, of course, but people who know what I mean know that I believe that multicloud reality of "I have Amazon, I got Azure, I mean, hell, if you upgrade Office 365, you have Azure, so that's another cloud. So yes, people have multiple clouds in their environment, but the foundational work is being done now, you guys are doing it, and that's what I was getting at. There's no multiclouding going on, meaning sense of the seamless workload, what HashiCorp is doing, so this is the foundational, what you guys are getting at, in my mind, at least from my perspective, is a foundational conversation around what is the foundation of multicloud look like. >> And John, there is a technical equation here. I think a lot of people will argue the technical merits of what is multicloud, is it even possible to combine networking and security and all, those are really difficult problems to solve. At Cockroach Labs, to solve the database problem, to solve the data problem, to actually have, you know I could spin up a node at Cockroach on this laptop that's sitting next to you and have that participate in a database that spans multiple clouds, that's awesome. But there's a whole other side of this conversation, John, around what does it mean for my skills in my organization, what does it mean for the financial side of things, the legal, and so I think we're all dealing with a lot of these multicloud concepts, we're just not addressing them yet, and so, it's complex. >> Well, first of all, it's fun too, I mean it's complex, but innovation is complex. But here's the thing, Dave and I were joking around Cloud 2.0 and we picked that term, talking about Cloud 2.0, mainly because I remember during Web 2.0, it was just, everyone was just, "What is Web"..., and to create such a debate, so to goof on Web 2.0 we said Cloud 2.0, but what we mean is that it's changing, right? I'll give you an example, I mean to me Cloud 2.0 or multicloud is having a fully horizontal scalable infrastructure, that on-demand, elastic resource with domain specialty application development that takes advantage of data and machine learning for domain-specific context. And then having an addressable data layer on top of that. That to me is multicloud. >> And being able to service your customers no matter where they are. And unfortunately the public copywriters don't have full coverage across the whole planet so we inherently live in this multicloud world. If you wanted to pull an application today, I'm sorry but the world is your audience, there's no segmenting your app to just New York, right? And so how you actually service customers when they're coming at you from all over the planet. It's another challenge that we have. Fortunately I want to add to your Cloud Two conversation, I'm sorry the Cloud 2.0 conversation, that it is a world of hybrid and multi and multi region and single region and it's the evolution between these different kind of flavors of this situation, I feel is the emerging trend that's happening and we're-- >> Well categories are changing, network management becomes observability, configuration management becomes automation, the old database becomes a different kind of database for you, data protection is cyber protection. There's redefining moments here where white spaces are becoming larger categories. I mean, look at observability, probably going public, getting bought. >> John, look at what Google did over the past, like, 10, 12 years and look at the startups that are now out there that are kind of doing this really innovative stuff. We have LightStep here, you know Cockroach is another great example, what the Upbound team is doing, so people have been through this. From a data point of view we couldn't agree more. I can spin up an instance of RDS, Postgres and it's going to be a single instance, it's going to live in one region and that's going to service one bit of a cloud in one corner of the world. The cloud, and this massive distribution of stuff, it changed, you have to inherently start over when you're building these technologies, and that's why the CNCF has come about, right, is there's a fundamentally different approach-- >> CNCF, I love those guys and we're going to go to do CubeCon, but one of the things that I was talking with hashCode co-founder earlier today, he was talking about workflows. I was talking about workloads, and so I think the conversation is still technical and geeky but if you just abstract out all of the nerd talk and geek talk and say, "What's the workflow and what's the workload?", you go, okay, no other buzzwords should be talked. You've got to go onstage, so you've got to go. Jim Walker, Vice President of Product Marketing, Cockroach Labs, good friend of theCube, and our producer of this show, Mike Harold and the team, Escape/19, first inaugural multicloud conference. Be back with more after this short break. (techno music)

>> Announcer: From New York, it's theCube. Covering Escape/19. (techno music) >> Yeah, welcome back to theCube's coverage here in New York City for the first ever inaugural multicloud conference called Escape 2019, escape, we're in New York, we're not escaping from New York, we're escaping from the cloud. Jim Walker, Vice President of Product Marketing at Cockroach Labs, the custodian/founders of Cockroach Database. Welcome back, good to see you. >> Congratulations on your new role, new gig. Been there for a while? >> Yeah it's been a while since I've seen you, John, I've jumped out of the data space and into Kubernetes, and so, yeah, I landed at Cockroach Labs about a year ago. And having fun. >> It's interesting, the game is still the same, data is still the same as a value proposition, but software. >> Yeah. >> Data is now code, data is looking, interacting with software, data control planes, data layers, data lakes. All this is an evolution of stuff we were talking about back in the open source days at Hortonworks. The data is in motion, data in flight, data at rest, data is continuing to be critical in automation, security, every single app. >> Yeah, it's at the center of the big battle right now, right, there's this like... I just sense there's a larger battle going on for the platform right now, and the platform is being battled out by these large public cloud providers, and it's who can get compute, who can get actually, you know, people, residents in their cloud. Data has always been the centerpiece of that. Data is gravity, if it was on, before it was on-premise, so the battle was in-house at all these people and now it's like how do we get this stuff to move over. >> Yeah, we were talking before you came on camera, it helps we talk online a lot, and have a lot of connected friends in the cloud native space, but now that Cloud 2.0 has arrived, where it's enterprise hybrid, people are starting to get excited about that, you're seeing the re-platformization or refactoring or whatever word you want to use, a modern enterprise architecture, that has the best of cloud native, has the best of what the enterprise used to do with comput-- like mini-computers, whatnot, now packaged up an operating model. This modernization trend is hitting everything, note, developers, security, this is kind of where you're playing right now. Look what Google's done with Spanner database and where that's all come from in these kinds of large-scale data problems. Modernization's here, what's your take on this? >> Yeah, I know this is modernization, but it's stuff we've been doing for a long time. It's like, you know, I was talking to Steve Mulaney earlier, Steve's brilliant, right, and Steve's talking about 1992 we saw this transition to kind of client server. I've never seen anything like this trans... This transition and this modernization is much bigger than any of the other trends that we've been through. Back when we were talking before it was the Hadoop game, and we were talking modern data architecture, how do we actually transform the way we thought about data from these kind of single stovepipes of data into larger data lakes and this sort of thing. That was the beginning. What we're seeing this time though is a massive transformation up and down the stack of which data is one huge, massive piece of that. And as we know, man, data has gravity and it's at the center of this battle again. >> What's your definition of multicloud? We're at the first ever multicloud conference, what is multicloud? >> You know I get asked this a fair amount, so as I was looking for speakers it was like, "Well, what do you mean, a multicloud conference, what does that even mean?" There's a lot of people, multicloud unbelievers. I think we already live in a multicloud world. I think hybrid cloud is just multicloud. I talked to a lot of people through the CFP process for the conference. I had guys who were running edge computing platforms saying, "Talk to me about this", I'm like, "Well, if you look at it, it's just servers, they're just servers that are everywhere" and actually, how do we actually start to attach all this stuff. It's all multicloud, you know what is the cloud but a bunch of different servers that somebody else owns? You may own them, you may not. The challenge is going to be how do we tie all that together? >> Computer history has proven, if anything, heterogeneous environments, multi-vendor. You can go back and talk about, the comment about the client server, I mean, that was a real threat to the mainframe. Internetworking completely changed the game. At that time PCs were exploding in growth, and multi-vendor was a big buzzword. And that was the reality, you had to compete and service multiple vendors in an environment. >> Yeah, and-- >> Multiple cloud is just multiple vendors. >> John, it's called the multicloud conference, and you know my friend Joseph Jacks, I mean Joseph and I have a lot of conversations about things, you know, and he's brilliant in terms of how he thinks about commercial open source and how these things are, and you know I really played around with changing the name of this to the open and independent cloud conference, because that's really what this is about, it's about how do we have a conversation, in the open, about how we open up the cloud? I just thought, I was a little frustrated with some of the conferences I went to because, I think people are talking about this, but it's not lip service, it's just difficult to talk about it in a broader sense. >> Well, I'm really glad you did this because I've been calling multicloud bullshit on theCube for over a year, Stu and I have debates about this, and you know, putting-- >> I watched. >> Okay, of course, but people who know what I mean know that I believe that multicloud reality of "I have Amazon, I got Azure, I mean, hell, if you upgrade Office 365, you have Azure, so that's another cloud. So yes, people have multiple clouds in their environment, but the foundational work is being done now, you guys are doing it, and that's what I was getting at. There's no multiclouding going on, meaning sense of the seamless workload, what HashiCorp is doing, so this is the foundational, what you guys are getting at, in my mind, at least from my perspective, is a foundational conversation around what is the foundation of multicloud look like. >> And John, there is a technical equation here. I think a lot of people will argue the technical merits of what is multicloud, is it even possible to combine networking and security and all, those are really difficult problems to solve. At Cockroach Labs, to solve the database problem, to solve the data problem, to actually have, you know I could spin up a node at Cockroach on this laptop that's sitting next to you and have that participate in a database that spans multiple clouds, that's awesome. But there's a whole other side of this conversation, John, around what does it mean for my skills in my organization, what does it mean for the financial side of things, the legal, and so I think we're all dealing with a lot of these multicloud concepts, we're just not addressing them yet, and so, it's complex. >> Well, first of all, it's fun too, I mean it's complex, but innovation is complex. But here's the thing, Dave and I were joking around Cloud 2.0 and we picked that term, talking about Cloud 2.0, mainly because I remember during Web 2.0, it was just, everyone was just, "What is Web"..., and to create such a debate, so to goof on Web 2.0 we said Cloud 2.0, but what we mean is that it's changing, right? I'll give you an example, I mean to me Cloud 2.0 or multicloud is having a fully horizontal scalable infrastructure, that on-demand, elastic resource with domain specialty application development that takes advantage of data and machine learning for domain-specific context. And then having an addressable data layer on top of that. That to me is multicloud. >> And being able to service your customers no matter where they are. And unfortunately the public copywriters don't have full coverage across the whole planet so we inherently live in this multicloud world. If you wanted to pull an application today, I'm sorry but the world is your audience, there's no segmenting your app to just New York, right? And so how you actually service customers when they're coming at you from all over the planet. It's another challenge that we have. Fortunately I want to add to your Cloud Two conversation, I'm sorry the Cloud 2.0 conversation, that it is a world of hybrid and multi and multi region and single region and it's the evolution between these different kind of flavors of this situation, I feel is the emerging trend that's happening and we're-- >> Well categories are changing, network management becomes observability, configuration management becomes automation, the old database becomes a different kind of database for you, data protection is cyber protection. There's redefining moments here where white spaces are becoming larger categories. I mean, look at observability, probably going public, getting bought. >> John, look at what Google did over the past, like, 10, 12 years and look at the startups that are now out there that are kind of doing this really innovative stuff. We have LightStep here, you know Cockroach is another great example, what the Upbound team is doing, so people have been through this. From a data point of view we couldn't agree more. I can spin up an instance of RDS, Postgres and it's going to be a single instance, it's going to live in one region and that's going to service one bit of a cloud in one corner of the world. The cloud, and this massive distribution of stuff, it changed, you have to inherently start over when you're building these technologies, and that's why the CNCF has come about, right, is there's a fundamentally different approach-- >> CNCF, I love those guys and we're going to go to do CubeCon, but one of the things that I was talking with hashCode co-founder earlier today, he was talking about workflows. I was talking about workloads, and so I think the conversation is still technical and geeky but if you just abstract out all of the nerd talk and geek talk and say, "What's the workflow and what's the workload?", you go, okay, no other buzzwords should be talked. You've got to go onstage, so you've got to go. Jim Walker, Vice President of Product Marketing, Cockroach Labs, good friend of theCube, and our producer of this show, Mike Harold and the team, Escape/19, first inaugural multicloud conference. Be back with more after this short break. (techno music)