>>Mhm. Mhm. >>We're here with the Cube covering Calm Vault Connections 21. We're gonna look at the data protection space and how cloud computing has advanced the way we think about backup recovery and protecting our most critical data. Ranga Rajagopalan, who is the vice president of products at Con vault and Stephen Orban, who's the General manager of AWS marketplace and control services gents. Welcome to the cube. Good to see you. >>Thank you. Always A pleasure to see you here >>steve. Thanks for having us. Very >>welcome, Stephen, let's start with you. Look the cloud has become a staple of digital infrastructure. I don't know where we'd be right now without being able to access enterprise services I. T. Services remotely. Um But specifically how our customers looking at backup and recovery in the cloud, is it a kind of a replacement for existing strategies? Is it another layer of protection? How are they thinking about that? >>Yeah. Great question. David again, thank thanks for having me. And I think you know, look if you look back to 15 years ago when the founders of AWS had the hypothesis that many enterprises governments and developers we're gonna want access to on demand pay as you go I. T. Resources in the cloud. Uh None of us would have been able to predict that it would have Matured and um you know become the staple that it has today over the last 15 years. But the reality is that a lot of these enterprise customers, many of whom have been doing their own IT infrastructure for the last 10, 20 or multiple decades do have to kind of figure out how they deal with the change management of moving to the cloud. And while a lot of our customers um will initially come to us because they're looking to save money or costs, almost all of them decided to stay and go big because of the speed at which they are able to innovate on behalf of their customers and when it comes to storage and backup, that just plays right into where they're headed. And there's a variety of different techniques that customers use, whether it be, you know, a lift and shift for a particular set of applications or a data center where they do very much. Look at how can they replace the backup and recovery that they have on premises in the cloud using solutions like, but we're partnering with console to do or completely reimagining their architecture for net new developments that they can really move quickly for their customers. Um and and completely developing something brand new, where it is really a, you know, a brand new replacement and innovation for for for what they've done in the past. >>Great, thank you, Stephen Rachael, I want to ask you about the d were digital. Look, if you're not a digital business today, you're basically out of business. So, my question to you is how have you seen customers change the way they think about data protection during what I call the forced March to digital over the last 18, 19 months or customers, you know, thinking about data protection differently today >>definitely Dave and and thank you for having me and steven. Pleasure to join you on this cube interview first going back to stevens comments can't agree more. Almost every business that we talked with today has a cloud first strategy, a cloud transformation mandate and you know, the reality is back to your digital comment. There are many different paths to the hybrid multi cloud and different customers. You know, there are different parts of the journey. So I still was saying most often customers at least in the data protection perspective start the conversation by thinking here have all these tips. Can I start using cloud as my air gap long term retention target and before they realized they start moving their workloads into the cloud and none of the backup and record yesterday's are going to change. So you need to continue protecting the clothes, which is where the cloud native data protection comes in and then they start innovating around er, can I use cloud as media sites so that you know, I don't need to meet in the other side. So this year is all around us. Cloud transformation is all around us and and the real essence of this partnership between AWS and calm vault is essentially to dr and simplify all the paths to the club regardless of whether you're going to use it as a storage started or you know, your production data center, all your dear disaster recovery site. >>Yeah, it really is about providing that optionality for customers. I talked to a lot of customers and said, hey, our business resilience strategy was really too focused on D. R. I've talked to all the customers at the other end of the spectrum said we don't even have a D. R. Strategy now, we're using the cloud for that. So it's really all over the map and you want that optionality. So steven and then go ahead. >>Please, ransomware plays a big role in many of these considerations that greatly. It's unfortunately not a question of whether you're going to be hit by ransomware, it's almost we can like, what do you do when you're hit by ransomware and the ability to use the clothes scaled immediately, bring up the resources, use the cloud backups has become a very popular choice simply because of the speed with which you can bring the business back to normal our patients. The agility and the power that cloud brings to the table. >>Yeah, ransomware is scary. You don't, you don't even need a high school diploma to be a ransomware ist you can just go on the dark web and by ransomware as a service and do bad things and hopefully you'll end up in jail. Uh Stephen we know about the success of the AWS marketplace, uh you guys are partnering here. I'm interested in how that partnership, you know, kind of where it started and how it's evolving. >>Yeah, happy to highlight on that. So, look when >>we when we started >>Aws or when the founders of aws started aws, as I said 15 years ago we we realized very early on that while we were going to be able to provide a number of tools for customers to have on demand access to compute storage, networking databases that many, particularly enterprise and government government customers still use a wide range of tools and solutions from hundreds, if not in some cases thousands of different partners. I mean I talked to enterprises who literally use thousands of of different vendors to help them deliver their solutions for their customers. So almost 10 years ago, we're almost at our 10 year anniversary for AWS marketplace, we launched the first substantiation of AWS marketplace which allowed builders and customers to find try buy and then deploy third party software solutions running on amazon machine instances also noticed as armies natively right in their AWS and cloud accounts to complement what they were doing in the cloud. And over the last nearly 10 years we've evolved quite a bit to the point where we support software and multiple different packaging types, whether it be amazon machine instances, containers, machine learning models and of course SAS and the rise of software as a service. So customers don't have to manage the software themselves. But we also support data products through the AWS Data exchange and professional services for customers who want to get services to help them integrate the software into their environments. And we now do that across a wide range of procurement options. So what used to be pay as you go amazon machine instances now includes multiple different ways to contract directly, customer can do that directly with the vendor with their channel partner or using kind of our public e commerce capabilities. And we're super excited, um, over the last couple of months we've been partnering with calm vault to get their industry leading backup and recovery solutions listed on AWS marketplace, which is available for our collective customers now. So not only do they have access to convulse awesome solutions to help them protect against ransomware as we talked about and to manage their backup and recovery environments, but they can find and deploy that directly in one click right into their AWS accounts and consolidate their building relationship right on the AWS and voice. And it's been awesome to work with with Rhonda and the product teams and convo to really, um, expose those capabilities where converts using a lot of different AWS services to provide a really great native experience for our collective customers as they migrate to the cloud. >>Yeah, the marketplace has been amazing. We've watched it evolve over the past decade and, and, and it's a, it's a key characteristic of everybody has a cloud today. We're a cloud to butt marketplaces unique uh, in that it's the power of the ecosystem versus the resources of one and Ringo. I wonder from, from your perspective, if you could talk about the partnership with AWS from your view and then specifically you've got some hard news, I wonder if you could talk about that as well. >>Absolute. So the partnership has been extended for more than 12 years. Right. So aws and Commonwealth have been bringing together solutions that help customers solve the data management challenges and everything that we've been doing has been driven by the customer demand that we seek. Right customers are moving their workloads in the cloud. They're finding new ways of deploying their workloads and protecting them. Um, you know, earlier we introduced cloud native integration with the EBS API which has driven almost 70% performance improvements in backup and restores. And when you look at huge customers like coca cola who have standardized on AWS um, combo. That is the scale that they want to operate in. You manage around 1 50,000 snapshots 1200 ec, two instances across six regions. But with just one resource dedicated for the data management strategy. Right? So that's where the real built in integration comes into play and we've been extending it to make use of the cloud efficiencies like our management and auto scale and so on. Another aspect is our commitment to a radically simple customer experience and that's, you know, I'm sure Stephen would agree it's a big month for at AWS as well. That's really together with the customer demand which brought us together to introduce com ball into the AWS marketplace exactly the way Stephen described it. Now the heart announcement is coming back up and recovery is available in native this marketplace. So the exact four steps that Stephen mentioned, find, try buy and deploy everything simplified through the marketplace So that our aws customers can start using far more back of software in less than 20 minutes. A 60 year trial version is included in the product through marketplace and you know, it's a single click buy, we use the cloud formation templates to deploy. So it becomes a super simple approach to protect the AWS workloads and we protect a lot of them. Starting from easy to rds dynamodb document DB um, you know, the containers, the list just keeps going on. So it becomes a very natural extension for our customers to make it super simple to start using convert data protection for the w >>well the con vault stack is very robust. You have extremely mature stack. I want, I'm curious as to how this sort of came about and it had to be customer driven. I'm sure where your customers saying, hey, we're moving to the cloud, we had a lot of workloads in the cloud, we're calm vault customer. That intersection between calm vault and AWS customers. So again, I presume this was customer driven. but maybe you can give us a little insight and add some color to that. >>Everything in this collaboration has been customer driven. We were earlier talking about the multiple paths to chlorine vapor example and still might probably add more color from his own experience at our jones. But I'll bring it to reference Parsons who's a civil engineering leader. They started with the cloud first mandate saying we need to start moving all our backups to the cloud but we have wanted that bad actors might find it easy to go and access the backups edible is um, Conwell came together with the security features and com well brought in its own authorization controls and now we have moved more than 14 petabytes of backup data into the club and it's so robust that not even the backup administrator and go and touch the backups without multiple levels of authorization. Right. So the customer needs, whether it is from a security perspective performance perspective or in this case from a simplicity perspective is really what is driving this. And and the need came exactly like that. There are many customers who have no standardized on it because they want to find everything through the AWS marketplace. They want to use their existing, you know, the AWS contracts and also bring data strategy as part of that so that that's the real um, driver behind this. Um, Stephen and I hope actually announced some of the customers that I actively started using it. You know, many notable customers have been behind this uh, innovation, don't even, I don't know, I wanted to add more to that. >>I would just, I would, I would just add Dave, you know, look if I look back before I joined a W S seven years ago, I was the C I O at dow jones and I was leading a a fairly big cloud migration there over a number of years. And one of the impetus is for us moving to the cloud in the first place was when Hurricane Sandy hit, we had a real disaster recovery scenario in one of our New Jersey data centers um, and we had to act pretty quickly convert was, was part of that solution. And I remember very clearly Even back then, back in 2013, they're being options available to help us accelerate are moved to the cloud and just to reiterate some of the stuff that Rhonda was talking about consoles, done a great job over the last more than a decade, taking features from things like EBS and S three and EC two and some of our networking capabilities and embedding them directly into their services so that customers are able to more quickly move their backup and recovery workloads to the cloud. So each and every one of those features was as a result of, I'm sure combo working backwards from their customer needs just as we do at >>AWS >>and we're super excited to take that to the next level to give customers the option to then also by that right on their AWS invoice on AWS marketplace. >>Yeah, I mean, we're gonna have to leave it there steven, you've mentioned several times the sort of the early days of back then we were talking about gigabytes and terabytes and now we're talking about petabytes and beyond. Guys. Thanks so much. I really appreciate your time and sharing the news with us. >>Dave. Thanks for having us. >>All right. Keep it right there more from combat connections. 21. You're watching the >>cube. Mm hmm.

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

>> live from Boston, Massachusetts. It's the you covering your red hat some twenty nineteen brought to you by bread hat. >> Welcome back to our continuing live coverage here, read. Had summat. Twenty nineteen. You're watching Cube. I'm John Wallis along with stewed minimum. Nice to have you here with us as we head toward the homestretch. Day three of our three days of coverage here on the Q. We're now joined by a couple of guys who they put on their traveling shoes to get here, both hailing from Sydney, Australia. Gilman, pull a Matisse who's a senior innovation lead at Optimise and Vasily Check Culkin, who's a principal software architect, also adopted, which is the second largest mobile phone service provider in Australia. Gentlemen, thanks for being with us. Thanks, fiving. It's a long way to come, right? >> Yes, it is, but it's very worst trip. >> Excellent. Well, you're both on the keynote stage this morning. We'LL talk about that in just a little bit for folks who might not be familiar with obvious once you tell us a little bit about your footprint in Australia and what brings you here to talk about red hat and open >> shift well as you mentioned the obvious is a leading telco in Australia way are lucky that we own our infrastructure, which makes it a fantastic place As software engineers or infrastructure engineers working a CZ, we can develop new products and new solutions or innovate. It was in this network. Um all roles for the city and I adopted is essentially to identify new opportunities to innovate within our networks. We use our core I sets to innovate, but not on ly Just do this research and development also execute on this way. Call this a bit of an applied innovation where a ninety we would work really hard in in taking it, Teo to realise come but live writing on Colossus. >> So we're having a lot of stories with customers about transformation and telecommunications is one that's fascinating to look at because, you know, you work on software, you know, when I think back to tell Comet was, you know, fiber and towers and you know, physical implementation. But, you know, software, such a large part of what's going on. You tell us some of the changes going on and you know what's impacting your role in Annapolis? >> Uh, it's it's impacting all. Tell CAS actually, but yes, kill Cosa Switching from this old mine set off just fathers just hours. And this is Dan movements and five hundred Carmen, which is driving a lot of changes. People start thinking about social network functions and how we can dip alone on edge. How we can help our customers and developers to collaborate on next features how we can leverage although technologists and a state we have. >> I think if you think of software defined network and they moved to naturalization, you can now think of this. Australia is a big country that so you can not think of this entire infrastructure is being virtualized and could be made available for Also use a CZ well, so it's really changing that sense that it's not closed anymore and you can open to new cases. >> You know, you bring up it. Just a point about the pure geography of Australia. Huge country. Twenty five million people. No way would jealous here in the States, you had twenty five just, you know, in the Boston New York area. Probably I would think somewhere around there, but house that factor and just in terms of your operations in general that you do have nine million subscribers spread out over so much geography on dure trying to deliver the state of the art circuit service. Just, >> I said I couldn't take this one. So in terms of distance that there is an important impact. But what Today we were talking about phone calls. Video is essentially managing infrastructure, and you know, it's such a large country as its challenges. But it's something we're getting very good at a CZ. We pushing very hard to be present in regional Australia so you can sink of this beautiful landscape in getting five of there being a challenge, but with challenges that they did. The luck that comes with this is that we get to a parade, a scaled network, maybe not with the scale of subscribers that you have in any US, but we're the same challenges. So when it comes to innovation way, get the opportunities to way find you. >> So in the keynote, there was a lot of residents in the audience when you, you know, talked about breaking the language barrier. Maybe, you know, go in share with our audience here, just a tidbit as to what you were talking about. How that works from a technology standpoint. Roll >> out from technology. A point off you telephone you're stuck is it's complex thing. And if you want to integrate directly this telephone system directly with a phone call, it's our job. Okay, I did it. It's tough we did it. I'm never getting so. And the software developers what we tend to do when the get some complex things to solve. We obstructed away, and for us it was off the solution. We need to obstruct away all this complex ing all complex signaling nadiya handling and a very simple way off getting additional voice services within phone call. It's additional challenges like distance, and you can't just kind of older in the cloud because we need to be close to the customer. Otherwise, it will be very, very but quality. Always what and yeah, and it's opens availability toe innovate further, we can bring more services, not only voice, translation and transcription, but just think about it. You got your voice. We can help you. We can like new exciting services on plain old. >> So we had translate today and that we were here to talk about the technology may also the culture changed around. If on network becomes more open. And if we have these opportunities to live rage this network to try to build new products on DH, there are plenty of products that way. Also working on that are based on this idea that waken build products like people build APS to build a napkin, a smartphone or you need this environment way can expose the network in the same digital environment on DH. Translation is very interesting because it's emotional. If you think of communication, language can be a barrier. The a. D that we digitize the phone call and that we can then let build products or or engineer products that break barriers is very exciting. And so this is where we pick the specific use case for for the keynote today, Aziz, you mentioned before it has a emotional showing it, >> but there was if I got it right and police correct me if I didn't, um, you were engaged in a real time phone call right now and then if we pretended that one of you spoke one language, one of you spoke another. There was an immediate translation from English to French, French to English. And the call was being transcribed in real time as well. So it could be used another medium, right? I want to use it in, you know, e mails or other communications text, whatever. So you were stockpiling all this capability right in through the transcription, but doing real time voice translation. >> Take the venue, We idea. So things like translation is something that Microsoft, for example, does really well and many club companies to really well, the value we add is to move from having an adult translation request conditions like this to Russian, to integrating this in in one of the most natural communication channel, which is person to person. Phone call is a perfect place to start, because if there is one place where you're going to a language barrier as phone calls global, you can call anywhere in the world. This's pretty exciting environment. >> Oh, I thought so. I mean, >> you know, it's fascinating to think kind of history of telecommunications. It's well, you know, every country has their own, you know, system. But there needs to be that interconnection so that you know, today I don't think about whether you know I'm calling across the street across the country or across the globe. It takes care of that boy. If I could just plug into some of the available services on INDU translation, you know, right you're goingto bring Bring the world a little bit closer together. >> And the phone. Nichole's of Quintus, You don't sign up to brand, so you do sign up to a telescope. But this is regardless of your device. You can establish a phone call on used the services. I >> know some teenagers I'd like to have their conversations translated for May. Really helpful. >> You can build it a cz. Well, >> can you do work on that? Good. I'll have to think about it. What about five g And what is that doing for you? Just from a purely technical standpoint, the opportunities that you see coming with that I know rollouts. Probably still year or twenty four months away from taking place. I don't know what the Australia rollout is compared to the U. S. But in terms of what that speed is going to do for you, what kinds of possibilities you think the ceiling exist? I >> must after very developed. I'm thinking, like from Pew Software Development Point of view. Excuse me. Perfect opportunity to be connect customers with developers on an edge on a on your network. Andi, it's all the world later NCIS and bend with and you can do fascinating thing on edge ofthe network I raise that sings real time Rachael here at the open to reality five g will enable it and we'LL keep thiss development and improve speed off this stuff. And I'm looking forward to have all of this available not only for me as I'm looking for Loker, I don't want it close the opening network we're opening Tell Kal Toh the cool world off wonderful software development and it's fascinating >> The Savages. Also, if you think of five, you gotta think about momentum. There is this momentum that we have now to improve our networks, and it's not entirely just five g. We've got network function visualizations. We've got Coyote, and that momentum is very interesting because as we improve our network, it becomes more digital and especially mentioned as it becomes more digital. It's more open and enables new opportunities for enterprise customers off for startups to innovate in this environment. >> Okay, so my understanding from what you talked about and, you know, this is built on open shift, you know, what's the importance? You know, why Open shift and what is that enable for your business and ultimately your customers? >> This is actually something way quite proud off. When we started this journey in this software engineering space, it's inclined narrative. It's only natural to build functions in containers, but there was There was effectively that gap between building new applications in the current state of a network that has a a very different approach of operation. So, communities, where's the right tool for us? But when you operate a carrier network, you need strong support and you need Teo. You need to have a very firm Acela's because you don't drop phone calls. This is very important minute communication, and this is where we had a fantastic relationship is really to find a way to operationalize thiss deployment. >> Ricardo wasn't only like operating this thing way worked hand in hand last few years, they've helped a lot this designing systems like best practices. We learned a lot off each other and it was fantastic journey way really enjoyed working on this. It's extremely professional team, >> No, in from a timing perspective Oh, our journey came together a same time, as read it started seeing telcos has being where the next big thing or the next something to very much start focusing on. >> So so what's your next big thing? We're talking about five G and what that's going to open up, and we've read a lot about it here in the States. But from your perspective, you know what? What is that going to enable? What kind of services? Because for G's already, you know, blowing everybody's mind in some respects, right with the data capabilities there imaging transactions, those kinds of things, but five g your thought, I think, >> previews. Innovation cycles things three G for G Always came, came in with a pre pre baked benefits, often speeds with five minutes a little. My opinion is a little bit different. What's happening? What we're doing is is an example of this is in a V that you have a new environment and important environment where new things can happen and so you're going to see this as Oppen versus closed what it means is that the next big thing is not necessarily five year. And Evie. Next big thing is what software developers will make of this environment. And that might be a start up. Or they could be enterprised could bring you cooperate, right? And we are very much very much open to start conversation with anyone that would like to make use of this. He's >> got the next big thing. That was God the next big thing yet, Right, gentlemen, thank you for making the long trip. I know not just to see us, but we do appreciate your carving out some time for us. Good job this morning. And, uh, good luck down the road. >> Thank you for having us. >> Thank you. Thank you. Back with more live from Boston. You're watching the Cuban. You're watching coverage from Red Hat Summit twenty nineteen

(upbeat techno music) >> Host: Live, from Boston Massachusetts, it's the Cube, covering Red Hat Summit 2017, brought to you by Red Hat. >> Welcome to day two of the Red Hat Summit here in beautiful Boston, Massachusetts. I'm your host, Rebecca Knight, with my co-host, Stu Miniman. We are welcoming Jim Whitehurst, who is the president and CEO of Red Hat. Thanks so much for taking the time to sit down with us. >> Thanks, it's great to be here. >> So, I want to talk about the theme of this year's conference, which is celebrating the impact of the individual. In your keynote you talked about the goal of leadership today is to create a context for the individual to try, to modify, to fail, to just keep going. Sounds great. How do you do that? >> Well that's why I say, leadership is about creating a context for that to happen. So you have to create a safe environment for people to try and fail. And you know, this is a tough one, because somebody fails 20 times, you know, maybe it's time him to find a new career. >> Rebecca: (laughs) >> But, you have to create the opportunity for people to fail in a safe way and actually then learn from that. And one of the things I talk a lot about, especially CEOs and CIOs is, you got to create that context. The world that we used to live in was all about taking variance out, you know, Lean Six Sigma process. Innovation's all about injecting variance in, and there's no way to inject variance in without making errors. So how do you, I want to say reward making errors, but you certainly want to reward risk taking and recognize, by definition, some risks aren't going to play out. And that's all about culture. Yeah, it's about process and reward systems, but it's mainly about culture. >> So reward, risk taking, no blaming, what are some other defining elements of this culture in which individuals can feel free to take risks? >> Well, I think a big part of it is you have to celebrate the people who try things And you celebrate taking the risk. You don't necessarily celebrate the successes, right? It's like, you know, in school, you miss something, that's bad, you get something right, that's good. Well we have a tendency to say, let's celebrate the successes, versus actually celebrating the risk taking. And so, there are some processes and systems you have to put in place. You have to have systems in place to make sure no one can risk 100 million dollars. If every Red Hatter could risk 100 million dollars, we'd be in trouble. But you have to figure out how you give enough latitude, enough free time. And, I was just yesterday talking to some Red Hatters who had moved over from IBM. They said, "It's great, we can try new things." Now, try new things within a context of a certain amount of budget or a certain amount of time. So there are processes and systems you have to put in place, but ultimately it's culture more than anything else. It trumps anything else. >> Jim, in your keynote, you said, planning is dead, and that, you know, we're lousy predictors, things are changing so fast. Your role though, you're CEO of a public company that has 60 quarters of consecutive revenue growth. So, it seems you guys are doing pretty well at getting involved in some of the waves that are happening, understanding how to keep growing at a steady pace. Maybe you can reconcile that a little bit for us, as to how you're doing that. >> Yeah, so, one of the reasons that I think that we've been able to navigate a whole set of fairly significant transitions in technology is that we don't select technology, we select communities. And I think that's a really important subtlety. So, we didn't come in and say, "Oh, we like OpenStack more than we like CloudStack of Eucalyptus or the other opensource IaaS that were out five years ago. We looked and observed that OpenStack had built the biggest user base. You know the reason we're significantly involved in Kubernetes today, versus Diego, or Swarm, or the other orchestrators for containers out there, is we observed it was building the biggest community. And, we don't just glom on, we actually kind of get in and contribute ourselves. But we look more to say what are the best communities and let's get involved in that. I don't know what the Kubernetes roadmap is for the next five years, but I'm confident that it has the best community that will drive the right direction for-- >> It's probably a little over-simplified to say you looked for the VHS ecosystem versus the Betamax best technology. >> Rachael: (laughs) >> No, exactly. Exactly, but that's what we think we're good at is observing when a community is the best community. And I say that, it's not just a matter of observation. Whether it's OpenStack or Kubernetes, we get in a help think about governance, right? So, one of the things I think really helped OpenStack is we saw it had the best user community, but we help put together the governance structure, which truly made it neutral, made it open. And so, we try to actually help in doing that, but it really is about identifying communities rather than technologies. >> Is it ever possible that you could identify the right community that might have certain elements, but it's got elements that wouldn't quite work for the opensource way, can you change that community? Is it possible to go in and push a new culture into that community? >> We think we're actually pretty good at that. Now, I think there's a mix of not every community has to be the same. We often talk about, there is no opensource community. There are are literally two million open source communities. And Linux has a culture, many of our projects in JBoss. So Drools is different than Fuse that's different than others. And so, it's okay that the cultures can be different. The key is they all have to have a common element about being open, and committing to being open, and truly being a meritocracy, cause if they best ideas don't win, that's when communities fall apart. And that's actually one of the biggest places where they fall apart. So, I do think we can influence open, and I think just by our contributions we probably influence the cultures of some of those communities. But we don't try to say is there's a Red Hat way to do community. There are a lot of different ways. >> Jim, we look at the cloud space, open is one of these terms that doesn't necessarily mesh with your definition with what the cloud guys do. You guys, of course, supported Red Hat Linux in every single cloud environment that I can think of. For many years you have a expanded partnership with AWS. But, I was debating with Sam Ramji yesterday, from Google, about like, there is no open cloud. There are clouds that use opensource, opensource can live here, but all the big public clouds are built on their platforms and openness is a challenge there. What's your thought as to how you fit there? And then we'll want to get into some of the discussion of the AWS announcement. >> Yeah, sure. So, in defense of the public clouds, it's impossible to offer a physical offering that has hardware in a software stack without it having some of your technologies that don't make it totally open, right? Or transferable. >> Is this why we never saw a Red Hat Open Cloud? >> Well, it's just that, yeah, it doesn't quite make sense in our context for that reason as well. So the role we try to play is, we do try to play the abstracter role, and we do that at multiple levels. So, Red Hat Enterprise Linux runs across a physical data center, virtual data center, and the major clouds. And that's an abstraction point that we think adds value. Because all the way back to 15 years ago, Red Hat Enterprise Linux meant that you could run the same application on a Dell server or an IBM, or an HP Blade, right? And so, we're working to apply that at the cloud level, certainly at the operating system level, but, because of all the services and the growth containers, we needed to do it at another level, and that's what we're doing with OpenShift. So, OpenShift allows you to run on physical, or on virtual in your own data center, on the major public clouds, and take advantages of the services underneath, but do it in a little bit more of an abstracted way. >> All right. So, we had Optum on yesterday, who was also part of the keynote. He's using OpenShift. He's using AWS. He was very excited about the opportunity of OpenShift being able to extend those Amazon services. You and Andy Jassy doing a video this morning. Give us a little bit of the inside look. You know, how long did it take to put this together? My understanding, it's not shipping today, but coming a little bit later this year. Give us a little bit behind what happened. >> Yeah, so. You know, this really started off with a breakfast Andy and I had in January, where we said, look, our teams are working really well together, and we've been partners since 2008, but kind of from the bottom up, I think we were taking very much an incremental approach of what we could do together, what customers we could work with. And, I think it's a little bit in the context of they've been out some other kind of big deals with some other vendors, and so, why don't we think about, what's a true net new offering. So let's now just talk about, oh, running it on Amazon's lower cost. I mean, clearly there's a cost thing there, but, what can we do that's like, wow, actually changes the life of some of the people who are using our technologies. And so what we decided is, well, wouldn't it be amazing, literally at breakfast we were talking about it, if OpenShift, which is used by enterprises all around the world, could actually leverage the thousands of services that AWS is putting out, right? So, right now, if you want to use all of these services, you have to be on AWS, which is great, but there are a lot of customers for whatever reasons, for regulatory reasons, or just by choice or economics, who decided to run on-premise or elsewhere. And so, by making those thousands of services available, it's a win-win all around. For Amazon, it's a ability to expose some really amazing innovation to many, many thousands, hundreds of thousands of developers, and for us it's a way to expose all this innovation to our developers, without kind of forcing someone necessarily to go all-in on cloud. Now, I'll say that we were literally, you know, Sunday night still getting the final contract done. >> Rebecca: (laughing) >> But I would say, when you have a really clear, differentiated source of value for customers, the deal came together, I think, relatively quickly. >> Yeah, et cetera. One of the things we've been trying to reconcile a little bit is, when you talk to customers about where their applications live, that hybrid or multi-cloud world, versus the offerings that are out there, it was a mismatch, because, you know, they were like, oh, I'm using VMware in one place, and I'm using Amazon somewhere else. I've got my SaaS in a different place. We're starting to see Amazon mature their discussion of hybrid through partnerships of yours. OpenShift looks like something that can really help enable customers to kind of get their arms around those environments in many locations. >> Well, I think so. One of the things, if you really go and talk to developers, developers really don't care that much about infrastructure software, and they shouldn't care. And, it's interesting. I think developers right now are really enamored by containers, because containers somewhat makes their life easy. But, I was talking to some of the folks in Red Hat that deal a lot with developers, and they say, ultimately developers shouldn't want to care and don't want to care about even containers. They just want to write code, and they want code to work, right? And one of the cool things about OpenShift is that's kind of what you're doing, is you're saying write code. Yeah, use any of the services you want from anywhere you want to use it. They're all there. They're all available. You don't have to worry about, I want this service, so I have to run this on Amazon, or, hey, I got my database on-premise, so I got to run here. Let's just make it easy. And I think that's one of the cool things about this announcement that's cool for developers, but it's also unique that it's something that only we could bring together. >> Yeah, serverless is something that's been gaining a lot of buzz to kind of say, right, it's underneath there. There's probably going to be containers, but my people writing applications don't want to worry about that. Speak to, it's the application affinity and that tie to kind of modernization of applications that seems to be one of the biggest challenges we've been facing for the last couple of years. Why are companies coming to Red Hat, working across your solution set to help them with that challenge of their older applications, but also kind of building the new businesses. >> Well I think for a couple reasons. So first off, if we really think about what Red Hat is, we call ourselves a software company, but we give away all our IP, so that's a stretch, right? >> Rebecca: (laughs) >> You know, when we think about our overall mission is, we think, there's enterprise customers here with a set of challenges, and there's all this phenomenal innovation happening in opensource communities. How do we build a bridge between those. So certainly that's product. So we create opensource, well, products out of opensource projects. It's about architecture, and then it's about process. And we talked about open innovation labs. But in part of thinking about that's what we do, we obviously start off say, well, what are enterprise problems, and what are technologies that help solve those problems? So, one of the things that we've driven so hard into our container platform is the ability to run stateful applications, right? So it's great to talk about scale-out and cloud native, and we certainly do that, but go talk to any CIO and 99.9% of their application portfolio is stateful. And so, we think about that and we drive those needs. And the reason we're the second largest contributor of Kubernetes isn't just because we're nice people. It's because we're trying to drive enterprise needs into these projects. And so, I do think that technologies that would ultimately emerge, and the products we're able to put out, help enterprises consume opensource in a way that is actually value adding. >> I wanted to ask you about the examples that you used in the keynote today. The three that you highlighted were governance. >> Jim: Yeah. >> And I think that that was really interesting because you're showing how opensource is bringing new innovations and ideas into government and agencies not necessarily known for innovation. Where do you see the future of technology in government coming together? >> Well, one of the reasons I wanted to use government examples is that I actually wanted to highlight, well, what's the role of government when you start thinking about innovation. So, certainly, we could've brought up a lot of examples. You know, yesterday the Optum folks that are big users of our platform, and they've kind of created a context for innovation among their developers. But the reason I wanted to highlight governments, and really try to do it from regions around the world, was to say there is a role for government when you start thinking about what is the new system underneath the economy. So, in the 1940s and 50s in the US the interstate highway system was an important piece of infrastructure. We've always thought about roads and bridges and airports as important for creating the underpinnings for an economy, and that's really, really important in a world of physical goods. And it's not that we don't have physical goods now, but more and more we still have to start thinking about information assets. And look, I've gone and seen the FCC and advocated for net neutrality and all that stuff. And so, certainly broadband as a fundamental infrastructure's important, but I think that government plays a more important role. Whether that's education, and we could spend two hours on education, but even kind of creating these contexts where you make data available. That's what I loved about the British-Columbia example. But broadly it's like, how do you create a context for more citizen participation. I think it's just as important in the 21st Century as roads and bridges were in the 20th Century. >> Jim, you mentioned net neutrality. I'm curious your take on just kind of the global discussion that's going on. A lot of your customers here are international, you've got open communities. The question about net neutrality, trade. It feels like many people, we interviews the president of ICANN a few years ago, and was worried about, you know, are we going to have seven internets, not one internet, because there are certain Asian, and even like Germany, worried about cutting things off. How does that impact your thinking? Do you guys get involved in some of those governmental discussions? >> Well we do. A matter of fact, we actually do have, I'd say a small government affairs team that advocates around these issues. Because we see it too, even with OpenShift, where you start saying, well, different privacy laws in Europe versus the US, but what if someone's running OpenShift in Europe, but it's actually instantiated in the US, and who can get access to what data. Those are really, really important issues. And it is a little bit like, you know, we ought to pick the same railroad gauge, right? To some extent, we need to have a set of consistent policies, not necessarily in every area, but enough that you can actually have the free flow of information, without worrying about, oh my god, I'm exposing myself to felony privacy issues because I'm hosting this application on a cloud that happens to be in the US. So there's some real issues that we have to work through. And they're so bleeding edge and so complex, I'm not sure that we're quite ready to get those done. But these are going to be critical, critical to the economy of the 21st Century. >> The other thing, I can't let you go without asking you about just the opensource business models themself. I've been listening to podcasts. We had a couple of companies go IPO recently. >> Jim: Yeah. >> They're better involved, and they're like, oh wait, I'm an enterprise company, I'm a software company. VC, you shouldn't invest in opensource because they can't monetize what they're doing. What's your take on the investment and business prospect for the other companies that are not Red Hat? >> Well, look, I'm thrilled to see Cloudera going public. Obviously Hortonworks public. MuleSoft recently. And I know some of those are hybrid models, they have an open core, and they have some other proprietary around it. But look, it's still dollars that are getting invested in opensource software I think we've clearly proven a model that you can have 100% opensource and build a successful business. For a whole set of technologies, it's clearly a better innovation model. The thing that I continue to push people is, don't think about it as selling IP. And this is, I've actually had conversations with several university presidents about this same issue. University education is more about the content. Don't be scared of MOOCs, right? And most people kind of get that, a university education, yeah, content's a part of it. But there are 50 other things that make up an education. So that's when I always come back to opensource companies and say, assume the content's free, because it's going to be better if it's totally free. And now think about, how do you build a model around the fact that content's free. And, I think education's a great one. Your industry in media is certainly one that needs to continue to innovate around business models as well. So, rather than saying, let's take a development model that's superior in a number of regards for a set of technologies, especially around infrastructure, and say, let's hamper it, and make it work in the old school business model. Let's continue to work to innovate business models that allow the innovation to happen, because it's going to happen, right? You do have to recognize that so much of what you're seeing in opensource is really a byproduct of what Google and Facebook and others are doing. And that's going to continue, so the best innovation's going to come there. You got to figure out business models that work for it. >> You got to figure them out Thank you so much, Jim. Jim Whitehurst, we appreciate your time. >> It's great to be here. Thanks so much for having me. >> I'm Rebecca Knight for Stu Miniman. We will return with more from the Red Hat Summit. (upbeat techno music)