>> Live from Barcelona, Spain, it's theCUBE. Covering KubeCon CloudNativeCon, Europe, 2019. Brought to you by Red Hat, the CloudNative Computing Foundation and ecosystem partners. >> Welcome back, we're at the end of two days, wall-to-wall coverage here at KubeCon CloudNativeCon here in Barcelona, Spain. I'm Stu Miniman, my co-host for two days has been Corey Quinn. Corey, we've gone two days, it's five years of Kubernetes, and everybody's been wondering when are you going to sing happy birthday to Fippy and the Kubernetes team? >> Generally, no one wants to hear me sing more than once, because first, I don't have a great singing voice, but more importantly, I insist on calling it Corey-oki, and it just doesn't resonate with people. The puns don't land as well as you'd hope they would. >> Maybe not singing, but you are a master of limericks, I'm told. >> So they tell me, most are unprintable, but that's a separate argument for another time. >> Alright, so, Corey this is your first time at KubeCon. >> It is. >> In CloudNativeCon, we've done some analysis segments, I thought we've had some phenomenal guests, some great end-users, some thought leaders, >> We had some great times. >> You need to pick your favorite right now. >> Oh, everyone's going to pick their own favorite on this one, but I've got to say it was, it would have to be, hands down, Abby Fuller, from AWS. Not that I didn't enjoy all of our guests -- >> Is it because you have AWS on your Lapel pin, and that secretly you do work for Amazon? >> Hardly, just the opposite, in fact. It's that, given that my newsletter makes fun of AWS on a near constant basis, whenever someone says Oh, there's going to be a public thing with Corey and someone from AWS, half the people there are like, Oh, this is going to be good, and the other half turn ghost white and Oh, no, no, this is going to go awfully. And, I'll be honest, it's been a day now, I still don't know which it was, but we had fun. >> Yeah, so, Abby was phenomenal, loved having her on the program, I'm a sucker for the real transformational stories, I tell you Jeff Brewer from Intuit, there's been many times I do a show and I do like, the first interview, and I'm like, I can go home. Here we hear a company that we know, both of us have used this technology, and really walks us through how that transformation happens, some of the organizational things. They've brought some software in and they're contributing to it, so just many aspects of what I look at in a company that's modernizing and going through those pieces. And those kinds of stories always get me excited. >> That story was incredible, and in fact it's almost starting to turn into a truth and labeling issue, for lack of a better term, because this is the Cloudnative Foundation, the software is designed for things that were more or less born in the cloud, and now we're hearing this entire series of stories on transitioning in. And it almost feels like that's not native anymore, that's effectively something that is migrating in. And that's fantastic, it's a sign of maturity, it's great to see. And it's strange to think of that, that in the terms of the software itself is absolutely Cloudnative, it's not at all clear that the companies that are working with this are themselves. And that's okay, that's not a terrible thing. There was some snark from the keynote today about, here's a way to run web logic in Kubernetes, and half the audience was looking at this with a, Eeee, why would I ever want to do that? Because you're running web logic and you need to continue to run web logic, and you can either sit there and make fun of people, you can help them get to a different place than they are now that helps their business become more agile and improves velocity, but I don't think you can effectively do both. >> Yeah, Corey, anything that's over than 5 years old why would you ever want to do that? Because you must always do things the brand new way. Oh wait, let's consider this for a second, lift and shift is something that I cringe a little bit when I hear it because there's too many times that I would hear a customer say I did this, and I hadn't fully planned out how I was doing it, and then I clawed it back because it was neither cheap nor easy, I swiped that credit card and it wasn't what I expected. >> Yeah, I went ahead and decided to run on a cloud provider now my infrastructure runs on someone else's infrastructure, and then a few months go by, and the transition doesn't happen right, I was wrong, it's not running on someone else's infrastructure, it's running on money. What do I do? And that became something that was interesting for a lot of companies, and painful as well. You can do that, but you need to plan the second shift phase to take longer than you think it will, you will not recoup savings in the time frame you probably expect to, but that's okay because it's usually not about that. It's a capability story. >> I had hoped that we learned as an industry. You might remember the old phrase, my mess for less? By outsourcing, and then we'll, Oh wait, I put it in an environment, they don't really understand my business, I can't make changes in the way I want, I need to insource now my knowledge to be able to work close with the business, and therefore no matter where I put my valuable code, my valuable information and I run stuff, I'm responsible for it and even if I move it there as a first step, I need to make sure how do I actually optimize it for that environment from a cost savings, there's lots of things that I can to change those kind of things. >> The one cautionary tale I'm picking up from a lot of these stories has been that you need to make sure the people you're talking to, and the trusted advisors that you have are aligned with your incentives, not their own. No matter where you go, there's an entire sea of companies that are thrilled and lined up to sell you something. And that's not inherently a bad thing, but you need to understand that whenever you're having those conversations, there's a potential conflict of interest. Not necessarily an actual one, but pay attention. You can partner with someone, but at some point your interests do diverge. >> Okay, Corey, what other key learnings or sound bites did you get from some of our speakers this week? >> There were an awful lot of them. I think that's the first time I've ever seen, for example, a project having pieces removed from it, Tiller, in this case, and a bunch of people clapped and cheered. They've been ripped out of Helm, it's oh awesome, normally the only time you see something get ripped out and people cheer is when they finally fire that person you work with. Usually, that person is me, then everyone claps and cheers, which, frankly, if you've met me, that makes sense. For software, it's less common. But we saw that, we saw two open-source projects merging. >> Yeah. >> We had, it was-- >> Open telemetry is the new piece. >> With open senses and open tracing combining, you don't often see that done in anything approaching a responsible way, but we've seen it now. And there's been a lot of people a little miffed that there weren't a whole bunch of new features and services and what not launched today. That's a sign of maturity. It means that there's a stability story that is now being told. And I think that that's something that's very easy to overlook if you're interested in a pure development perspective. >> Just to give a little bit of a cautionary piece there, we had Mark Shuttleworth on the program, he said Look, there are certain emperors walking around the show floor that have no clothes on. Had Tim talking, Joe Beta, and Gabe Monroy on, some of the earliest people working on Kubernetes and they said Look, five years in, we've reached a certain level of maturity, but Tim Hoggin was like, we have so much to do, our sigs are overrunning with what I need to do now, so don't think we can declare success, cut the cake, eat the donuts, grab the t-shirt, and say great let's go on to the next great thing because there is so much more yet to do. >> There's absolutely a consulting opportunity for someone to set up shop and call it imperial tailoring. Where they're going around and helping these people realize that yes, you've come an incredibly long way, but there is so much more work to be done, there is such a bright future. Now I would not call myself a screaming advocate for virtually any technology, I hope. I think that Kubernetes absolutely has it's place. I don't think it's a Penesea, and I don't think that it is going to necessarily be the right fit for every work load. I think that most people, once you get them calmed down, and the adrenaline has worn off, would largely agree with that sentiment. But that nuance often gets lost in a world of tweets, it's a nuanced discussion that doesn't lend itself well to rapid fire, quick sound bites. >> Corey, another thing I know that is near and dear to your heart they brought in diversity scholarships. >> Yes. >> So 56 people got their pass and travel paid for to come here. There's really good, People in the community are very welcoming, yet in the same breath, when they talked about the numbers, and Cheryl was up on stage saying only three percent of the people contributing and making changes were women. And so, therefore, we still have work to do to make sure that, you've mentioned a couple of times on the program. >> Absolutely, and it is incredibly important, but one of the things that gives me some of the most hope for that is how many companies or organizations would run numbers like that and realize that three percent of their contributors are women, and then mention it during a keynote. That's almost unheard of for an awful lot of companies, instead they wind up going and holding that back. One company we don't need to name, wound up trying to keep that from coming out in a court case as a trade secret, of all things. And that's generally, depressingly, what you would often expect. The fact that they called it out, and the fact that they are having a diversity scholarship program, they are looking at actively at ways to solve this problem is I think the right answer. I certainly don't know what the fix is going to be for any of this, but something has to happen, and the fact that they are not sitting around waiting for the problem to fix itself, they're not casting blame around a bunch of different directions is inspirational. I'm probably not the best person to talk on this, but the issue is, you're right, it is very important to me and it is something that absolutely needs to be addressed. I'm very encouraged by the conversations we had with Cheryl Hung and several other people these last couple of days, and I'm very eager to see where it goes next. >> Okay, Corey, what about any things you've been hearing in the back channel, hallway conversations, any concerns out there? The one from my standpoint where I say, well, security is something that for most of my career was top of mine, and bottom of budget, and from day one, when you talk about containers and everything, security is there. There are a number of companies in this space that are starting to target it, but there's not a lot of VC money coming into this space, and there are concerns about how much real focus there will be to make sure security in this ecosystem is there. Every single platform that this is going to live in, whether you talk the public clouds, talk about companies like Red Hat, and everybody else here, security is a big piece of their message and their focus, but from a CNCF if there was one area that I didn't hear enough about at this show, I thought it might be storage, but feels like we are making progress there, so security's the one I come out with and say I want to know more, I want to see more. >> One thing that I thought was interesting is we spoke to Reduxio earlier, and they were talking about one of their advantages was that they are quote enterprise grade, and normally to me that means we have slides with war and peace written on every one. And instead what they talked about was they have not just security built into this, but they have audit ability, they have an entire, they have data lifecycle policies, they have a level of maturity that is necessary if we're going to start winning some of these serious enterprise and regulated workloads. So, there are companies active in this space. But I agree with you, I think that it is not been a primary area of focus. But if you look at how quickly this entire, I will call it a Kubernetes revolution, because anything else takes on religious overtones, it's been such a fast Twitch type of environment that security does get left behind, because it's never a concern or a priority until it's too late. And then it becomes a giant horses left, barn door's been closed story, and I hope we don't have to learn that. >> So, MultiCloud, Corey, have you changed your mind? >> I don't think so, I still maintain that MultiCloud within the absence of a business reason is not a best practice. I think that if you need to open that door for business reasons then Kubernetes is not a terrible way to go about achieving it. But I do question whether it's something everyone needs to put into their system design principles on day one. >> Okay, must companies be born CloudNative, or can they mature into a CloudNative, or we should be talking a different term maybe? >> I don't know if it's a terminology issue, we've certainly seen companies that were born in on-prem environments where the classic example of this is Capital One. They are absolutely going all in on public cloud, they have been very public about how they're doing it. Transformation is possible, it runs on money and it takes a lot more time and effort than anyone thinks it's going to, but as long as you have the right incentives and the right reason to do things it absolutely becomes possible. That said, it is potentially easier, if you're born in the cloud, to a point. If you get ossified into existing patterns and don't pay attention to what's happening, you look at these companies that are 20 years old, and oh they're so backwards they'll never catch up. If you live that long, that will be you someday. So it's very important to not stop paying attention to what the larger ecosystem is doing, because you don't want to be the only person responsible for levels of your stack that you don't want to have to be responsible for. >> Alright, want to give you the final word. Corey, any final things, any final questions for me? >> Fundamentally I think that this has been an incredible event. Where we've had great conversations with people who are focused on an awful lot of different things. There are still a bunch of open questions. I still, for example, think that Serverless is being viewed entirely too much through a lens of functions as a service, but I'm curious as far as what you took away from this. What did you learn this trip that you didn't expect to learn? >> So, it's interesting when we talk about the changing world of OpenSource. There's been some concern lately that what's happening in the public cloud, well, maybe OpenSource will be imploding. Well, it really doesn't feel that way to me when you talk at this show, we've actually used the line a couple of times, Kubernetes is people. It is not the vendors jested, >> Internet of flesh. >> There are people here. We've all seen people that we know that have passions for what they are doing, and that goes above and beyond where they live. And in this community it is project first, and the company you work for is second or third consideration in there. So, there's this groundswell of activity, we're big believers of the world can be changed if, I don't need everybody's full time commitment, if you could just take two percent of the US's watching of TV in a single year, you could build Wikipedia. Clay Sharky, one of my greats that I love from those environments, we believe that the network and communities really can make huge efforts and it's great to see tech for good and for progress and many of the outcomes of that we see here is refreshingly uplifting to kind of pull us out of some of the day-to-day things that we think about sometimes. >> Absolutely, I think that you're right, it has to come from people, it has to come from community, and so far I'm seeing a lot of encouraging signs. One thing that I do find slightly troubling that may or may not resolve itself is that we're still seeing CloudNative defined in terms of what it's not. That said, this is theCUBE, I am not Stu Miniman. >> Well, I am Stu Miniman, you are Corey Quinn. Corey, how's it been two days on theCUBE wall-to-wall through all these things, ready for a nap or fly home? >> I'm ready to call it a week, absolutely. I'm somewhat surprised that at no point have you hit me. And one of these days I am sure we will cross that border. >> Well, definitely, I try not to have any video or photo evidence of that, but thank you Corey, so much. We do have to make a big shout out, first and foremost to the CloudNative Computing Foundation without their partnership, we would not be able to come here. And we do have sponsorship if you look on the lower thirds of the videos you will see our headline sponsor for this show has been Red Hat. Obviously strong commitment in this community, and will be with us here and also in San Diego for KubeCon. Additional shout out to Cisco, Canonical, and Reduxio for their sponsorship here. And all the people that put on this show here, it's a big community, our team. So I want to make a big shout out to my boys here, coming in I've got Pat, Seth, flying in from the West Coast as well as the Tony Day crew Tony, Steve, and John. Thank you guys, beautiful set here, love the gimble with the logo. Branding here, lot's of spectacle, and we always say check out thecube.com to see all the replays as well, see where we will be, reach out with any questions, and thank you as always, for watching theCUBE. (upbeat jingle)

(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)

(lively music) >> Hello, and welcome to this special CUBE conversation. I'm John Furrier, founder of SiliconANGLE Media, co-host of theCUBE. We are here in our Palo Alto Studio to have a conversation around cloud computing, multi-cloud, hybrid cloud, the changes going on in the IT industry and for businesses across the globe as impacted by cloud computing, data, AI. All that's coming together, and a lot of people are trying to figure out how to architect their solution to scale globally but also take care of their businesses, not just cutting costs for information technologies, but delivering services that scale and benefit the businesses and ultimately their customers, the end users. I'm here with a very special guest, Donnie Berkholz, who's the VP of IT services delivery at CWT, Carlson Wagonlit Travel. Also the program chair of the Open Source summit, part of the Linux Foundation, formerly an analyst, a great friend of theCUBE. Donnie, great to see you. Thanks for joining us today. >> Well, thanks for having me on the show. I really appreciate it. >> So we've been having a lot of conversations around, obviously, cloud. We've been there, watching it, from day one. I know you have been covering it as an analyst. Part of that cloud ought to go back to 2007, '08 time frame roughly speaking, you know, even before that with Amazon. Just the massive growth certainly got everyone's attention. IBM once called Amazon irrelevant. Now going full cloud with buying Red Hat for billions and billions of dollars at a 63% premium. Open Source has grown significantly, and now cloud absolutely is the architectural linchpin for companies trying to change how they do business, gather more efficiencies, all built on the ethos of DevOps. That is now kind of going mainstream. So I want to get your thoughts and talk about this across a variety of touchpoints. One is what people are doing in your delivering services, IT services for CWT, and also trying to get positioned for the future. And then Open Source. You're on the Open Source program chair. Open Source driving all these benefits, now with IBM buying Red Hat, you've seen the commercialization of Open Source at a whole nother level which is causing a lot of conversation. So tell us what you're doing and what CWT is about and your role at the company. >> Absolutely, thank you. So CWT, we're in the middle of this journey we call CWT 3.0, which is really one about how do we take the old school green screens that you've seen when you've got travel agents or airline agents booking travel and bring people into the picture and blend together people with technology. So I joined about a year and a half ago to really help push things forward from the perspective of DevOps, because what we came to realize here was we can't deliver quickly and iterate quickly without the underlying platforms that give us the kind of agility that we need without the connections across a lot of our different product groups that led us, again, to iterate on the right things from the perspective of our customers. So I joined a year and a half ago. We've made a lot of strides since then in modernizing many of our technology platforms. The way I think about it here, it's a large enterprise. We've got hundreds of different applications. We've got many, many different product teams, and everything is on a spectrum. We've got some teams that are on the bleeding edge. Not even the leading edge, but I'd say the bleeding edge, trying out the very latest things that come out, experimenting with brand new Open Source tools, with brand new cloud offerings to see, can we incorporate that as quickly as possible so we can innovate faster than our competitors? Whether those are the traditional competitors or some of the new software companies coming into things from that angle. And then on the other end of the spectrum, we've got teams who are taking a much more conservative approach, and saying, "Let's wait and see what sticks "before we pick it up." And the fortunate thing, I think, about a company at the scale we are, is that we can have some of those groups really innovating and pushing the needle, and then other groups who can wait and see which parts stick before we start adopting those at scale. >> And so you've got to manage the production kind of stability versus kind of kicking the tires for the new functionality. So I've got to ask you first. Set up the architecture there. Are you guys on premise with cloud hybrid? Are you in the cloud-native? Do you have multiple clouds? Could you just give a sense of how you're deploying specifically with cloud? >> Yeah, absolutely. I think just like anything else, it's a spectrum of all we see here. There's a lot of different products. Some of them have been built cloud-native. They're using those serverless functions as service technologies from scratch. Brought in some leaders from Amazon to lead some of that drive here. They brought in a lot of good thinking, a lot of good culture, a lot of new perspective to the technologies we're adopting as a company that's not traditionally been a software company. But that is more and more so every day. So we've got some of that going on as completely cloud-native. We've got some going on that's more, I would say, hybrid cloud, where we're spanning between a public cloud environment back to our data centers, and then we've got some that are different applications across multiple different public clouds, because we're not in any one place right now. We're putting things in the best place to do the job. So that's very much the approach that we take, and it's one that, you know, back when I was in my analyst's world, as one of my colleagues called it, the best execution venue. What's the best place? What's the right place to do the right kind of task? We incorporate what are the best technologies we can adopt to help us differentiate more quickly, and where does the data live? What's the data gravity look like? Because we can't be shipping data back and forth. We can't have tons of transactions going back and forth all the time between different public clouds or between a public cloud and one of our data centers. So how do we best account for that when we're architecting what our applications should look like, whether they're brand new ones or whether they're ones we're in the middle of modernizing. >> Great, thanks for sharing, that's great, so yeah, I totally see that same thing. People put, you know, where the best cloud for the app, and if you're Microsoft Shop, you use Azure. If you want to kick the tires on Amazon, there's good roles for that, so we're seeing a lot of those multiple clouds. But while I've got you on the line here, I know you've been an analyst. I want you to just help me define something real quick because there's always kind of confusion between hybrid cloud and multi-cloud. Certainly the multi-cloud, we're getting a lot of hype on that. We're seeing with Kubernetes, with stateful applications versus stateless. You're seeing some conversations there. Certainly on Open Source, that's top of the agenda. Donnie, explain for folks watching the difference between hybrid cloud and multi-cloud, because there's some nuances there, and some people have different definitions. How do you guys look at that? Cause you have multiple clouds, but some aren't necessarily running a workload across clouds yet because of latency issues, so define what hybrid means to you guys and what multi-cloud means to you. >> All right, yeah, I think for us, hybrid cloud would be something where it's about integrating an on-prem workload off a more traditional workload with something in a public cloud environment. It's really, hybrid cloud to me is not two different public clouds working together or even the same application in two different public clouds. That's something a little bit different, and that's where you start to get, I think, into a lot of the questions of what is multi-cloud? We've seen that go through a lot of different transitions over the past decade or so. We've seen a lot of different, you know, vendors, going out there thinking they could sell multi-cloud management that, you know, panned out at different levels of success. I think for at least a decade, we've been talking about ideas like can we do cloud bursting? Has that ever really worked in practice? And I think it's almost as rare as a unicorn. You know, on-prem for the cost efficiencies and then we burst the cloud for the workload. Well, you know, to this day, I've never seen anything that gives you 100% functionality and 100% performance comparability between an on-prem workload and public cloud workload. There always seems to be some kind of difference, and this is a conversation that, I think, Randy Bias has actually been a great proponent of it's not just about the API compatibility. It's not just, you know, can I run Azure in their data centers or in mine? It's about what is the performance difference look like? What does the availability difference look like? Can I support that software in my data center as well as the engineers at Microsoft or at Amazon or at Google or wherever else they're supporting it today? Can I keep it up and running as well? Can I keep it performing as well? Can I find problems as quickly? And that's where it comes to the question of how do we focus on our differentiators and let the experts focus on theirs. >> That's a great point about Randy Bias. Love that great API debate. I was looking at some of that footage we had years ago. But this brings up a good point that I want to get your reaction to, because, you know, a lot of vendors going out there, saying, "Oh, our cloud's this. "We've got all this stuff going on," and there's a lot of hype and a lot of posturing and positioning. The great thing about cloud is that you really can't fake it until you make it. It's got to be working, right? So when you get into the kind of buying into the cloud. You say, "Okay, great, we're going to do some cloud," and maybe you get some cloud architects together. They say, "Okay, here's what it means to us. "In each environment, we'll have to, you know, "understand what that means and then go do it." The reality kind of kicks in, and this is what I'd like to get your reaction to. What is the realities when you say, "Okay, "I want to go to cloud," either for pushing the envelope and/or moving solid workloads that are in production into the cloud. What is the impact on the network, network security, and application performance? Because at the end of the day, those are going to be impacted. Those three areas come up a lot in conversations when all of the glam and all the bloom is off the rose, those are the things that are impacted. What's your thoughts on how practitioners should prepare for those three areas? The network impact, network security impact, and application performance? >> Yeah, I think preparation is exactly the right word there of how do we get the people we have up to speed? And how do we get more and more out of that kind of project mindset and into much more of the product mindset and whether that product is customer-facing or whether that product is some kind of infrastructure or platform product? That's the kind of thinking we're trying to have going into it of how do we get our people, who, you know, may run a Ci Cd pipeline, may run an on-prem container platform, may even be responsible for virtualization, may be responsible for on-prem networks or firewalls or security. How do we get them up to speed and turn them into real software engineers? That's a multi-year journey. That's not something that happens overnight. You can't bring in a team of consultants to fix that problem for you and say, "Oh, well, we came in and implemented it, "and now it's yours, and we walk out the door." It's no longer that, you know, build and operate mindset that you could take a little bit more with on-prem. Because everything is defined as code. And if you don't know how to deal with code, you're going to be in a real rough spot the next time you have to make a change to that stuff that that team of consultants came in and implemented for you. So I think it's turned into a much more long-term approach, which is very, very healthy for technology and for technology companies as a whole of how do we think about this long-term and in a sustainable way, think about scaling up our people. What do those training paths look like? What do those career paths look like? So we can decide, you know, how many people do we want certified? What kind of certifications should they have or equivalent skill sets? I remember hearing not too long ago that I think it was Capital One had over 10,000 people who were AWS certified, which is an enormously large number to think about, but that's the kind of transitions that we've been making as we become more and more cloud-native and cloud by default, is getting the right people. The people we have today trained up in these new kinds of skill sets instead of assuming that's something we can have some team fly in from magic land and implement and then fly away again afterwards. >> That's great, Don, thanks for sharing that insight. I also want to get your thoughts on the Open Source summit, but before we get there, I've got to ask you a question around some of the trends we've been seeing. Early on at DevOps we saw this together of the folks doing the hard work in the early pioneering days, where you saw the developers really getting closer to the front lines. They were becoming part of the business conversation. In the old world of IT, "Okay, here's our strategy. "Consolidate this, load some virtual machines," you know, "Get all this stuff up and running." The business decisions would then trickle down to the tech folks, then with the DevOps revolution, that's now cloud computing and all things, you know, IoT and everything else happening where the developers and the engineering side of it and the applications are on the front lines. They're in more of the business conversations, so I have to ask you. When you're at CWT, what are some of the business drivers and conversations that you guys are having with executive management around choices? Are they business drivers? Do you see an order of preference around agility? The transformation value for either customers or employees, compliance and security, are the top ones that people talk about generally. Of those business drivers, which ones do you guys see the most that are part of iterating through the architecture and ultimately the environment that you deploy? >> Yeah, I think as part of what I mentioned earlier, that we're on this journey we call CWT 3.0, and what's really new about that is bringing in speed and agility into the conversation of if we have something that we imagine as a five year transformation, how do we get to market quickly with new products so that we can start really executing and seeing the outcomes of it? So we've always had the expectations around availability, around security, around all these other factors. Those aren't going away. Instead, we're adding a new one, so we've got new conversations and a new balance to reach at an executive level of we now need a degree of speed that was not the expectation, let's say, a decade ago. It may not even have been the expectation in our industry five years ago, but is today. And so we're now incorporating speed into that balance of maybe we'll decide to very intentionally say, "We're not going to go over quite as many nine's today "so that we can be iterating more quickly on our software." Or, "We're going to invest more "in better release management approaches and tools," right? Like Canary releases, like, you know, Green-Blue releases, all these sorts of new techniques, feature flags, that sort of thing so that we can better deal with speed and better account for the risk and spread it to the smallest surface area possible. >> And you were probably doing those things also to understand the impact and look at kind of what's that's coming in that you're instrumenting in infrastructure because you don't want to have to put it out there and pray and hope that it works. Right, I mean? The old way. >> The product teams that are building it are really great and really quick at understanding about what the user experience looks like. And whether that's their Real User monitoring tools or through, you know, other tools and tricks that we may incorporate to understand what our users are doing on our tools in real time, that's the important part of this, is to shorten the iteration cycle and to understand what things look like in production. You've got to expose that back to the software engineers, to the business analysts, to the product managers who are building it or deciding what should be built in the first place. >> All right, so now that you're on the buyer's side, you've actually got people knocking on your door. "Hey, Donnie, buy my cloud. "Do this, you know, I've got all these solutions. "I've got all these tools. "I've got a toolshed full of," you know, the fool with the tool, as they say. You don't want to be that person, right? So ultimately you've got to pick an environment that's going to scale. When you look at the cloud, how do you evaluate the different clouds? You mentioned gravity or data gravity earlier. All kinds of new criteria is up there now in terms of cloud selection. You mentioned best cloud for the job. I get that. Is there certain things that you look for? Is there a list? Is there criteria on cloud selection that goes through your desk? >> Yeah, I think something that's been really healthy for me coming into the enterprise side from the analyst perspective is you get a couple of new criteria that start to rise up real quickly. You start thinking about things like what's that vendor relationship going to look like? How is the sales force? Are they willing to work with you? Are they willing to adapt to your needs? And then you can adapt back with them so you can build a really strong, healthy relationship with some of your strategic vendors, and to me, a public cloud vendor is absolutely a strategic vendor. That's one where you have to really care a lot and invest in that relationship and make sure things go well when you're sailing together, going in the same direction. And so to me, that's a little bit of a newer factor because it was easy to sit back and come in as the strategic advisor role and say, "Oh, you should go with this cloud. "You should go with that cloud "because of reasons X, Y, or Z," but that doesn't really account for a lot of things that happen behind the scenes, right? What's your sourcing and human department doing? How do they like to work with around contract, right? Will you negotiate a good MSA? All these sorts of things where you don't think about that when you're only thinking about technology and business value. You also have to think about the other, just the day to day, what does it look like? What's the blocking and tackling working with some of those strategic vendors? So you've got that to incorporate in addition to the other criteria around do they have great managed services? You know, self-service managed services that will work for your needs? For example, what do they have around data bases? What do they have around stream processing? What do they have around serverless platforms, right? Whatever it might be that suits the kinds of needs you have. Like for example, you might think about what does our business look like, and it's a graph, right? It's travelers, it's airports, it's planes, it's hotels. It's a bunch of different graphs all intersecting, and so we might imagine looking for a cloud provider that's really well-suited to processing those sorts of workloads. >> In the old days, the networking guys used to run the keys to the kingdom. Hey, you know, I'm going to rack and stack servers. I'm going to do all this stuff, but I've got to go talk to the networking guys, make sure all the routes are provisional and all that's locked down, mainly because that was a perimeter environment then. With cloud now, what's the impact of the networking? What's the role of the network? As we see DevOps notion of infrastructure as code, you've got to compute networking stores as three main pillars of all environments. Compute, check. Stores getting better. Networking, can you imagine Randy Bias? This was a big pet peeve for him. What's the role that cloud does? What's the role of the network with your cloud strategy? >> Yeah, I think something that I've seen following DevOps for the past decade or so has been that, you know, it really started as the ops doing development moved more into the developers and the ops working together and in many cases sharing roles in different ways, then incorporated, you know, QA, and incorporated product, to some extent. Most recently it's really been focused on security and how do we have that whole DevSecOps, SecDevOps thing going on. Something that's been trailing behind a little bit was network, absolutely. I had some very close friends about 10 years ago, maybe, who were getting into that, and they were the only people they knew and they only people they'd ever even heard of thinking beyond the level of using some kind of an expect script to automate your network interaction. But now I think networking as code is really starting to pick up. I mean, you look at what people are doing in public cloud environments. You look at what Open Source projects like Ansible are doing or on the new focus on network functionality. They're not alone in that. Many others are investing in that same kind of area. It's finally really starting to get up. Like for example, we have an internal DevOps Day that we run twice a year, and at the most recent one, guess who one of our speakers was? It was a network engineer talking about the kinds of automation they'd been starting to build against our network environments, not just in public cloud, but also on-premise. And so we're really investing in bringing them into our broader DevOps community, even though Net may not be in the name today. I don't think the name can ever extend to include all possible roles. But it is absolutely a big transition that more and more companies, I think, are going to see rolling along, and one that we've seen happening in public cloud externally for many, many years now. It's been inevitable that the network's going to get engaged in that automation piece. And the network teams are going to be more and more thinking about how do we focus our time in automation and on defining policy, and how do we enable the product teams to work in a self-service way, right? We set up the governance, but governance now means they can move at speed. It doesn't mean wait seven to 30 days for us to verify all of the port openings, match our requirements, and so on and so forth. That's defined up front. >> Yeah, and that's awesome, and I think that's the last leg of the stool in my opinion, and I think you nailed it. Making it operationally automation enabled, and then actually automating it. So, okay, before we get to the Open Source, one final question for you. You know, as you look at plan for the technologies around containers and microservices, what sounds a lot like networking constructs, provisioning, services. The role of stateless applications become a big part of that. As you look at those technologies, what are some of the things you're looking for and evaluating containers and microservices? And what role will that play in your environment and your job? >> I think something that we spend a lot of time focusing on is what is the day two experience going to look like? What is it going to be like? Not just to roll it out initially, but to, you know, operate on an ongoing basis, to make upgrades, to monitor it, to understand what's happening when things are going wrong, to understand, you know, the security stance we're at, right? How well are we locked down? Is everything up-to-date? How do we know that and verify it on a continuous basis instead of the, you know, older school approach of hey, we kind of do a ECI survey or an audit, you know, once a year, and that's the day we're in compliance, and then after that, we're not. Which I was just reading some stories the other day about companies saying, "Hey, there's a large percentage "of the time that you're out of compliance, "but you make sure to fix it just in time "for your quarterly surveys or scans or what have you." And so that's what we spend a lot of our time focusing on is not just the ease of installation, but the ease of ongoing operability and getting really good visibility into the security, into the health, of the underlying platforms that we're running. And in some cases, that may push us to, let's say, a cloud managed service. In some cases, we may say, "Well, that doesn't quite suit our needs." We might have some unique requirements, although I spend a lot of my time personally saying, "In most cases, we are not a snowflake, right?" We should be a snowflake where we differentiate as a company. We should not be a snowflake at the level of our monitoring tools. There's nothing unique we should really be doing in that area. So how can we make sure that we use, whether it's trusted vendors, trusted cloud providers, or trusted Open Source projects with a large and healthy community behind them to run that stuff instead of build it ourselves, 'cause that's not our forte. >> I love that. That's a great conversation I'd love to have with you another time around competitive advantage around IT which is coming back in vogue again. It hasn't been that way in awhile because of all the consolidation and outsourcing. You're seeing people really, really ramp up and say, "Wait a minute, we outsourced our core competency and IT," and now with cloud, there's a competitive advantage, so how do you balance the intellectual property that you need to build for the business and then also use the scale and agility with Open Source? So I want to move to that Open Source conversation. I think this is a good transition. Developers at the end of the day still have to build the apps and services they're going to run on these environments to add value. So Open Source has become, I won't say a professional circuit for developers. It really is become the place for developers because that's where now corporations and projects have been successful, and it's going to a whole nother level. Talk about how Open Source is changing, and specifically around it becoming a common vehicle for one, employees of companies to participate in as part of their job, and two, how it's going to a whole nother level with all this code that's flying around. You can't, you know, go dig without finding out that, you know, new TensorFlow library's been donated for Google, big code bases are being rolled in there, and still the same old success formula for Open Source is continuing to work. You're on the program chair for Open Source summit, which is part of the Linux foundation, which has been very, very successful in this modern era. How has that changed? What's going on in Open Source? And how does that help people who are trying to stand up architecture and build businesses? >> I think Open Source has gone through a lot of transitions over the past decade or so. All right, so it started, and in many ways it was driven by the end users. And now it's come back full circle so that it's again driven more and more by the end users in a way that there was a middle term there where Open Source was really heavily dominated by vendors, and it's started to come back around, and you see a lot of the web companies in particular, right? You're sort of Googles and Amazons and LinkedIns and Facebooks and Twitters, they're open sourcing tools on an almost daily basis, it feels like. I just saw another announcement yesterday, maybe the day before, about a whole set of kernel tools that I think it was Facebook had open sourced. And so you're seeing that pace just going so quickly, and you think back to the days of, for example, the Apache web server, right? Where did that come about from? It didn't come from a software vendor. It came from a coalition of end users all working together to develop the software that they needed because they felt like there's a big gap there and there's an opportunity to cooperate. So it's been really pleasing for me to see that kind of come back around full circle of now, you can hardly turn around and see a company that doesn't have some sort of Open Source program office or something along those lines where they start to develop a much more healthy approach to it. All right, the early 2000's, it was really heavy on that fear and uncertainty and doubt around Open Source. In particular by some vendors, but also a lot of uncertainty because it wasn't that common, or maybe it wasn't that visible inside of these Fortune 500 global 2000 companies. It may have been common, right? What we used to say back when I worked at RedMonk was you turned around, and you asked the database admins, you know, "Are you running MySQL? "Or are you running Postgres?" You asked the infrastructure engineers, "Are you running Linux here?" and you'll get a yes, nine times out of ten, but the CIO was the last to know. Well now, it's started to flip back around because the CIO's are seeing the business value and adopting Open Source and having a really healthy approach to it, and they're trying to kind of normalize the approach to it as a consequence to that, saying, "Look, it's awesome "that we're adopting Open Source. "We have to use this "so that we can get a competitive advantage "because every thousand lines of code we can adopt "is a thousand lines of code we don't have to write, "and we can focus on our own products instead." And then starting to balance that new model of it used to be, you know, is it buy versus built? And then Sass came around, and it's buy versus build versus rent. And now there's Open Source, and it's buy versus build versus rent versus adopt. So every one of these just shifts conversation a little bit of how do you make the right choice at the right time at the right level of the stack? >> Yeah, that's a great observation, and it's awesome insight. It feels like dumping a little bit, a lot of dumping going on in Open Source, and you worry that the flood of vendor-contributed code is the new tactic, but if you look at all the major inflection points from the web, you know, through bitcoin, which is now 10 years old this year, it all started out as organic community projects or conversations on a message board. So there's still a revolution, and I think you're right. Their script is flipping around. I love that comment about the CIO's were last to know about Open Source. I think now that might be flipping around to the CIO's will be last to know about some proprietary advantage that might come out. So it's interesting to see the trend where you're starting to see smart people look at using Open Source but really identifying how they can use their engineering and their intellectual capital to build something proprietary within Open Source for IT advantage. Are you seeing that same trend? Is that on the radar at all? Is that just more of a fantasy on my part? >> I think it's always on the radar, and I think especially with Open Source projects that might be just a little bit below the surface of where a company's line of business is, that's where it will happen the most often. And so, you know, if you were building an analytics product, and you decided to build it on top of, you know, maybe there's the ELK Stack or the Elastic Stack, or maybe there's Graylog. There's a bunch of tools in that space, right? Maybe, you know, Solar, that sort of thing. And you're building an analytics tool or some kind of graph tool or whatever it might be, yeah, you might be inclined to say, "Well, the functionality's not quite there. "Maybe we need to build a new plugin. "Maybe we need to enhance a little bit." And I think this is the same conversation that a lot of the Linux kernel embedded group went through some number of years ago, which is, it's long term a higher burden to maintain a lot of those forks in-house and keep updating them forever than it is to bring some of that functionality back upstream. That's a good, healthy dialogue that hopefully will be happening more and more inside a lot of these companies that are taking Open Source and enhancing it for their own purposes, is taking the right level of those enhancements, deciding what that right level is, and contributing those back upstream and building a really healthy upstream participation regardless of whether you're a software vendor or an adopter of that software that uses it as a really critical part of their product stack. >> Awesome, Donnie, thanks for spending the time chatting with me today. Great to see you, great to connect over our remote here in our studio in Palo Alto. A final question for you. Are you having fun, these days? And what are you most excited about because, again, you've seen. You've been on multiple sides of the table. You've seen what the vendors have. You actually had the realities of doing your job to build value for Carlson Wagonlit Travel, CWT. What are you excited about right now? What's hot for you? What's jazzing you these days? >> Yeah, I think what's hot for me is, you know, to me there's nothing or very little that's revolutionary in technology. A lot of it is evolutionary, right? So you can't say nothing's new. There's always something a little bit different. And so the serverless is another example of something that it's a little bit different. It's a little bit new. It's similar to some previous takes, but you got new angles, specifically around the financials and around, you know, how do you pay? How is it priced? How do you get really almost closer to the metal, right? Get the things you need to happen closer to the way you're paying for them or the way they're running. That's remains a really exciting area for me. I've been going to Serverlessconf for probably since the first or second one now. I haven't been to the most recent one, but you know, there's so much value left in there to be tapped that I'm not yet really on to say, "What's next? What's next?" I've helped myself move out of that analyst world of getting excited about what's next, and for me it's now, "What's ready now?" Where can I leverage some value today or tomorrow or next week? And not think about what's coming down the pipe. So for me, that's, "Well, what went GA?" Right? What can I pick up? What can I scale inside our company so that we can drive the kinds of change we're looking for? So, you know, you asked me what am I the most excited about right now, and it's being here a year and a half and seeing the culture change that I've been driving since day one start to come back. Seeing teams that have never built automation in their lives independently go and learn it and build some automation and save themselves 80 hours a month. That's one example that just came out of our group a couple months back. That's what's valuable for me. That's what I love to see happen. >> Automation's addicting. It's almost an addictive flywheel. We automate something. Oh, that's awesome. I can move on to something else, something better. That was grunt work. Why do I want to do that again? Donnie, thanks so much, and again, thanks for the insight. I appreciate you taking the time and sharing with theCUBE here in our studio. Donnie Berkholz is the VP of IT source of CWT, a great guest. I'm John Furrier here inside theCUBE studio in Palo Alto. Thanks for watching. (lively 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)