3 ms·

Good points. But, they also faced the same issue with Borg - presumably it was hard to open source, so, they created Kubernetes instead. There is nothing stoppi

Good points. But, they also faced the same issue with Borg - presumably it was hard to open source, so, they created Kubernetes instead. There is nothing stopping Google from doing the same thing with Spanner or BigTable. Such a move would probably be well received by the community. It seems likely that people at Google would want to work on such projects - AIUI, CockrochDB was created by ex-Googlers. (And I didn't mean to focus on those technologies too specifically - with HBase and CockroachDB already existing, maybe Google wouldn't want to compete, but, I suspect they have other technologies for which creating open source versions would be well received, but they choose not to). My point isn't that Google could directly open source those technologies. Nor is it that they should create open source versions of them. I'm more just musing on how when the selfish reasons to do something line up with the good reasons to do something, you tend to get cool results. At a previous job, we had this process that everyone was supposed to do via a script. Doing the process via the script meant we got the logging that we wanted and such. Everyone was supposed to do it this way. However, there were no technical controls preventing anyone from doing that process by hand. We just told people not to. So, one day, a colleague asks me how to make sure that everyone does the process the right way. And my answer is that everyone already does - the script is way easier to run that to do it by hand. The good thing to do (run it the way you were told to), lined up with the selfish reason (it was way easier to do that way). Making sure those two things were in alignment was effectively as powerful as making it impossible to do the wrong way. (since then, the process has been significantly changed). I feel like its a similar case here. The good thing to do was to create a cool technology and make it free for everyone. The selfish thing to do, was to create a technology that made business sense. The result, is Kubernetes was created as open source (at least, thats my theory). If that wasn't the good thing to do, maybe the person writing the article doesn't talk to the VP on the shuttle about it and it never happens. If it wasn't the selfish thing to do (business case), maybe the VP wouldn't approve it. But, getting those two things aligned, results in positive reinforcement and results.

jchw 8y ago
They mention some of the benefits of open sourcing in this article: >We always believed that open-sourcing Kubernetes was the right way to go, bringing many benefits to the project. For one, feedback loops were essentially instantaneous — if there was a problem or something didn’t work quite right, we knew about it immediately. But most importantly, we were able to work with lots of great engineers, many of whom really understood the needs of businesses who would benefit from deploying containers (have a look at the Kubernetes blog for perspectives from some of the early contributors). It was a virtuous cycle: the work of talented engineers led to more interest in the project, which further increased the rate of improvement and usage. Of course, open sourcing software was never about charity - but I do think that it was always a community thing, and big companies choosing to be a part of that community are neither selfish or selfless for simply participating.
- dagenix 8y ago
  > Of course, open sourcing software was never about charity - but I do think that it was always a community thing, and big companies choosing to be a part of that community are neither selfish or selfless for simply participating. Strongly agree. And to be clear, I didn't use the term "selfish" as a pejorative - I think its pretty reasonable to expect any entity to analyze how a decision will directly benefit them and to act accordingly.

jchw 8y ago

They mention some of the benefits of open sourcing in this article: >We always believed that open-sourcing Kubernetes was the right way to go, bringing many benefits to the project. For one, feedback loops were essentially instantaneous — if there was a problem or something didn’t work quite right, we knew about it immediately. But most importantly, we were able to work with lots of great engineers, many of whom really understood the needs of businesses who would benefit from deploying containers (have a look at the Kubernetes blog for perspectives from some of the early contributors). It was a virtuous cycle: the work of talented engineers led to more interest in the project, which further increased the rate of improvement and usage. Of course, open sourcing software was never about charity - but I do think that it was always a community thing, and big companies choosing to be a part of that community are neither selfish or selfless for simply participating.

dagenix 8y ago
> Of course, open sourcing software was never about charity - but I do think that it was always a community thing, and big companies choosing to be a part of that community are neither selfish or selfless for simply participating. Strongly agree. And to be clear, I didn't use the term "selfish" as a pejorative - I think its pretty reasonable to expect any entity to analyze how a decision will directly benefit them and to act accordingly.