3 ms·

Last Kubecon in person was exactly like this page, few interesting talks, lots of vendor pitch and them trying to convince cloud native is opposite of vendor lo

by CSDude 6y ago

Last Kubecon in person was exactly like this page, few interesting talks, lots of vendor pitch and them trying to convince cloud native is opposite of vendor lock-in. Yeah, maybe for things like OpenTracing where you can have multiple export options. But why the fuck Splunk or vSphere is here? Just because they support cloud native unit, containers? I unfollowed a lot of CNCF related twitter accounts and mailing lists to avoid vendor spam and been happier since. I don’t want to be that grumpy old man (I’m 30, kinda getting old for our sector unfortunately) but all of this is too much.

RobRivera 6y ago
30 is the new 24; ESPECIALLY with covid economics =D
qz2 6y ago
It's even worse. Half the "open source" projects are mixed license these days. All the useful and interesting bits are paid up extras which involve navigating half assed vendors with sales teams that don't even understand their own product line. I've spoken to two major well known players in CNCF and they were a total shit show of incompetence. I'm not sure if they have a maturity index but I think it probably comes from tarot cards, a crystal ball or the bottom of a tea cup. What happened is we traded one vendor lock in for management of a hundred different vendors all pushing incompatible bits of junk that cost a lot of money to stick together and everyone points fingers at the other vendors. At least when I worked at an MSFT only shop there was only one vendor to fight. I'm considerably older than you and the definition of "getting too old for our sector" is actually probably the tiresome experience we have. You see the forest not the trees and you realise the forest floor is made of the death of a thousand stupid ideas and mistakes remarketed in a different way.
- boulos 6y ago
  Disclosure: I work on Google Cloud. > Half the "open source" projects are mixed license these days. I can sympathize though. For the folks who built companies around making something awesome and having it available as open-source software, they did so out of the implicit assumption they’d be the natural ones people would pay for “support”. Other people were free to use the software, but other than explicit “I make this freely available it’s just a utility” software, the assumption was that people wouldn’t just fork it and make a business that wraps it (especially without contributing back). Some folks tried open core (as you describe), but it’s pretty painful for both parties. It’s not fun as an engineer to know “this feature this person wants is just arbitrarily disabled in the community edition”, while knowing “Sigh, and because they aren’t willing to pay us, we need to make money somehow”. I think the current battle over “who can turn it into a service” is actually a pretty interesting one. I found the AGPL to be a fiasco (the way it was written it could be interpreted as a legal virus, defeating even incidental DIY usage), but have more hope for seeing a license that says “Cloud providers can’t just monetize our work; people are still free to run it themselves though as DIY”. For open source to continue to prosper, it’ll have to figure out the business model.
  - qz2 6y ago
    It doesn’t need a business model. Most good open source exists out of necessity. A lot of this stuff transcends necessity and is about convincing people it is necessary.

by CSDude 6y ago

RobRivera 6y ago

30 is the new 24; ESPECIALLY with covid economics =D

qz2 6y ago

It's even worse. Half the "open source" projects are mixed license these days. All the useful and interesting bits are paid up extras which involve navigating half assed vendors with sales teams that don't even understand their own product line. I've spoken to two major well known players in CNCF and they were a total shit show of incompetence. I'm not sure if they have a maturity index but I think it probably comes from tarot cards, a crystal ball or the bottom of a tea cup. What happened is we traded one vendor lock in for management of a hundred different vendors all pushing incompatible bits of junk that cost a lot of money to stick together and everyone points fingers at the other vendors. At least when I worked at an MSFT only shop there was only one vendor to fight. I'm considerably older than you and the definition of "getting too old for our sector" is actually probably the tiresome experience we have. You see the forest not the trees and you realise the forest floor is made of the death of a thousand stupid ideas and mistakes remarketed in a different way.

boulos 6y ago
Disclosure: I work on Google Cloud. > Half the "open source" projects are mixed license these days. I can sympathize though. For the folks who built companies around making something awesome and having it available as open-source software, they did so out of the implicit assumption they’d be the natural ones people would pay for “support”. Other people were free to use the software, but other than explicit “I make this freely available it’s just a utility” software, the assumption was that people wouldn’t just fork it and make a business that wraps it (especially without contributing back). Some folks tried open core (as you describe), but it’s pretty painful for both parties. It’s not fun as an engineer to know “this feature this person wants is just arbitrarily disabled in the community edition”, while knowing “Sigh, and because they aren’t willing to pay us, we need to make money somehow”. I think the current battle over “who can turn it into a service” is actually a pretty interesting one. I found the AGPL to be a fiasco (the way it was written it could be interpreted as a legal virus, defeating even incidental DIY usage), but have more hope for seeing a license that says “Cloud providers can’t just monetize our work; people are still free to run it themselves though as DIY”. For open source to continue to prosper, it’ll have to figure out the business model.
- qz2 6y ago
  It doesn’t need a business model. Most good open source exists out of necessity. A lot of this stuff transcends necessity and is about convincing people it is necessary.