 Hola. Welcome. We appreciate you being here for this session. I am not Susan Wu who is the scheduled moderator but hopefully she will walk in at any minute and take her rightful place here. But in the meantime my name is Jennifer Fowler and I work with the foundation with media and analyst relations and so it's my pleasure to introduce some of our favorite people this morning who are serving on our panel. And we're going to be talking about emerging technologies threats and opportunities for the future of open source cloud. On the panel with me we have Shawn Michael Kerner who writes for eWeek and server watch and other periodicals too. Most everything do you still say periodicals? No. Those are gone. The internet thing. The 1920s. Yeah the interwebs. That's right. And Frederick Laudanois with TechCrunch. And then we also have representing our analyst community Owen Rogers with 451 research. Thank you all for being here and being willing to serve. We're going to open up. I'm going to pose a few questions and get the responses of the panelists. And then hopefully we'll have a little bit of time for you to ask your questions as well. So as we go through be thinking of questions that you would like to pose and we'll try to make some time for that at the end of the session. And feel free if you have a follow up question regarding one of their comments. We don't have a roving mic but if you can stand up and speak loudly we'll try to repeat it so that everyone can hear. Okay let's start with the user survey which was published last week. And if you haven't seen it there is a page on the OpenStack.org website about the user survey. It reported that containers is the most talked about technology that is emerging. Most talked about among the OpenStack user community. There was once a line of thought that containers were a threat to OpenStack. Now we hear more about OpenStack and containers being complementary. So what's your opinion? Have we moved beyond the notion that technologies like Docker Swarm, Kubernetes, Mesos and CoreOS are a threat to OpenStack? Anybody want to jump in there and take the first stab at it? Sure I'll take a stab at it. I was in an interesting session just two hours ago where Thierry Cares was talking you know what is OpenStack and you'd hope everyone knows what that is but some people don't including me apparently some days. When I first thought of OpenStack and when I first started dealing with OpenStack people would tell me OpenStack is everything to all people and then it dialed back and now the prevailing idea is that it's an integration engine for everything. As such if it's an integration engine then nothing is a threat because it's like the Borg. Resistance is futile everything will be assimilated. So there are no threats there are only opportunities. With containers though it's kind of interesting because what will happen is same kind of thing that happened with Java there's Enterprise Java Java EE and then there's lighter weight things like Tomcat then there's JavaScript. Same thing will kind of happen with containerized and microservices. Some people will need heavyweight services and that's where OpenStack will fit in with the additional services for networking identity, image store, security and the like and then some people will not need that and they'll use smaller things like CoreOS, Tectonic, Docker Data Center and the like so that's where I see it. It's not really an either or it's just opportunity. Great well said anyone else want to copy? I would love to disagree with you but I mostly agree with you. A lot of when I talk to Enterprise startups if it's a Greenfield application a lot of people go right to containers right use a container and or container service manage manage themselves. In the Enterprise I think that's where OpenStack plays a role as the integration engine because they still have these very different workloads and sometimes legacy workloads that run on OpenStack and containers just don't really work for that sometimes but yeah and containers to some degree I still think are a threat to OpenStack in the long run not tomorrow. Okay so I think end users are always going to want a range of different technology to meet their different needs so I run a service called the Cloud Price Index and essentially we produce an RFP of a cloud application we want to deploy and we send that out to tens of service providers to software vendors to hardware vendors to come back with average prices and then we start to unravel the TCO by breaking down all the assumptions so for example we started tweaking server utilization we started deciding actually maybe our labor efficiency isn't as efficient as it used to be and what we essentially found was that in different scenarios different solutions have different cost models and lower TCO so we found that in some applications where there's high utilization really good manpower efficiency OpenStack there is the better option and then we found where things aren't so efficient commercial offerings at the moment appear to be a good option as well and containers too there's some applications where containers are going to work perfectly there's some applications where a virtual machine is going to be the better choice and I don't think we can categorically say that every technology is going to be threat to another because of the fact of the matter is our industry is a complicated place with loads of applications out there already in existence and I don't think it's suddenly going to be that all of us shift overnight to one technology that's absolutely true the only thing I would add to that is we used to talk in OpenStack summits that you know VMware is the competitor VMware is a member of the OpenStack Foundation you can get VMware vSphere integrated containers inside of vSphere now there is VMware integrated OpenStack and then there's Photon platform so they they've covered all the bases there because they they don't want to be caught off guard either so and now we've got VMware and AWS working together that craze is a whole new cat and dogs living together it's crazy and we got Docker containers built into Windows Server so it's everywhere it's a crazy it's a crazy world but talking about but talking about old stuff I was at Red Hat Summit I guess last year because somebody was mentioning Solaris and I said nobody runs Solaris anymore I raise a raise a hand anybody's running Solaris and half the audience raised their hands because I think of it as legacy but legacy kind of stays forever excellent that's a good way to start off did we have any questions okay let me ask a follow-up question the OpenStack Foundation talks about software as an integration engine as you've mentioned the one platform for containers, VMs, bare metal is that more accurate now than it was a year ago and your perception is that message resonating? I don't know if it's resonating but it's it's really good for salespeople because no matter what the technology is it can do it but what I also see is when it's an integration engine I think there is and I know that they're supposed to the foundation supposed to be talking about it in keynotes tomorrow some interoperability challenge because a stack from one vendor we'll call it with the letter M that might be from the eastern part of Europe originally and another vendor that happens to wear you know certain colored hats their versions of OpenStack are somewhat different when they think of orchestration it's a little different when they think of an application catalog one of them uses Marano which is an interesting thing the other one does not and how they do it is different so integration is a wonderful word for being able to say yes to everything but the practical implementation is different and I think there's going to be a challenge between integration and interoperability that will become an issue as time goes on. Anything to add? I think the message has become a little bit clearer over the last year it's at least there is a clear message at this point you know that the whole message of OpenStack is the integration engine isn't that old yet it's the Tokyo summit maybe before. Because nobody wants to use the word platform either because what does a word platform mean? I've stopped using platform. But I get the impression that a few years ago everything was hey let's go cloud first let's put everything on the cloud and actually over the past couple of years people have realized that things aren't that black and white and aren't as simple and to some degree that's made people think maybe we should integrate things instead of kidding ourselves that we then suddenly pick up and move everything so I'm not sure if I'm not sure if OpenStack has matured as an integration engine but I think end users are more willing to accept that they have to integrate things rather than just shifting them to cloud yeah and using the word integration is also easier than saying it's an abstraction engine which is kind of more realistic in some ways. I'm more of a networking guy and networking of the OSI 7 layers and it's just layers of abstraction but it's still just all data packets on the wire so it's what's the lower level as you go higher up then you can say you can do everything and you're just abstracting those lower level services with some kind of shim or API or whatever you want to call it. Thank you. The user survey also indicated that interest in an NFV is significantly higher than it was a year ago and we can look at the keynotes and sessions being offered here today throughout the convention center on NFV and see how hot a topic it is. At the same time it's safe to say that NFV was not a use case that was originally envisioned by the community when the software was launched. How would you describe the impact of and the opportunity of NFV? I think it's actually the single largest opportunity for OpenStack by far because every carrier in the world has to deal with their growth and margin is an issue and the only way to do that is by embracing NFV, the largest carriers in the world are all doing it. Nobody wants to start from scratch and reinvent the wheel. Most carriers are now going to follow the lead of AT&T and the like which already have large, what did they say? 75% within the next five years of AT&T is going to be running NFV. That's impressive and people will follow suit. I don't know what the revenues will be for that necessarily because there are some interesting opportunities there and I think there'll be some pushback from network hardware vendors perhaps because I think it will cannibalize part of that business in favor of x86 commodity hardware but for OpenStack, for the platform, for the software vendors, it's a massive opportunity. Yeah, I mean, I write about startups a lot and often startups have one idea but the success is something else. There's some other thing that gets spun out of it. Twitter is a good example for that. You never know what it's going to be. I think it says something about the model of OpenStack that it's possible to have this other success story as well in the telecom world and that's only a good thing as far as I can see for OpenStack in general. I mean, it's more money coming in, more developers coming in, everything gets hardened a little bit better and the Deutsche Telecom guy this morning was talking about carrier grade OpenStack. At the end of the day, everybody wants not just the telecoms but everybody wants carrier grade technology. So it seems like a good opportunity there. So we just looking at my notes here. So we predict OpenStack revenue to be valued at 2020. So that's the size of the OpenStack market in 2020 to be valued at five billion and the majority of that revenue we see coming from service providers. Now, as Sean was saying, I think this is primarily down to the economics. I think service providers telcos, they like NFV because essentially it means their margins which are already being squeezed because of competitive price pressure, they can save a cost element by using NFV. OpenStack is obviously open source and furthermore, they have the economies of scale and can achieve the labor efficiency and utilization. That means NFV for them is a real worthwhile endeavor. So I think it's great for everyone. Great. Well, considering that opportunity then, let me ask you your perspective on this. Are we as a community properly addressing the needs of the telecom and service provider industry? The wonderful thing about OpenStack is it's I know Mark this morning said it was what developer driven. I would respectfully disagree. He's not in here so he can't throw anything at me or cut me with his big scissors. Those were huge scissors but it's operator driven. So the operator groups, the mid-cycle operator, meetups and the like which I track are ridiculously well attended, more so than I've seen anywhere else. Just to go back to the NFV thing for half a second, I used to be active years ago in something called Carrier Grade Linux which didn't go anywhere because it didn't quite have that operator level of involvement. This NFV push is not being driven by individual contributors with itch to scratch as it were in the traditional open source cathedral and bizarre kind of idea. It's driven by operators who are trying to drive better margins operational efficiency. So the operators are doing it for their own self-benefit and that of their shareholders and that's why it will be successful. It's because it's not a horse before the cart or however you want to look at it. It's directly being matched to what the needs are. There's no in between here. Good point. All right, let's move on. The foundation recently released the... Oh, a question? Yes. Go ahead. Okay, his comment is that he would like to see the foundation be more open about doing meet-ups and conventions with other people. Do you mean other organizations or with telecom? So that's really interesting. So I almost like to establish the culture of integration and open stack as a share of technology rather than a competitor. It was a similar question at the press conference. I think this morning about Kubernetes specifically and working together with Kubernetes. And I think the argument there was that they are working together with the Cloud Native Foundation and other organizations, but maybe that doesn't really reflect in the community as much? Maybe not. I know that there have been significant efforts in the past year with the Cloud Native Compute Foundation and also with Open BNFB and lots of mutual discussions and meetings at various conferences and things like that, but certainly a start. And maybe we need to communicate that a little bit better and also continue it and accelerate it a little bit. Thank you very much for your comment. Yes. I'm seeing now is that since NFB, it's a Wild West, as we'll say. You have, for example, we have Erickson, you have Hallway, Cisco. They are doing their own stuff and sharing very little. I mean, to my perspective, it's a threat in a way that so far we were doing things collaboratively. And now we're starting to see shifts very fast because of NFB. What do you guys think about that? Do you think it's gonna, you know, the tempos will learn how to collaborate or they will do business as usual as they always AT&T has their own platform, which is entirely different than everybody else. And then they're basing it on there. So it gets very, it's very complicated. It's and it's very messy. And then there's the Linux Foundation efforts. So there's Onos, which now merged with OnLab, Open Daylight, Kindus, Sorda, maybe not really. Yeah, it's gonna be, it is a Wild West and the interoperability challenge is massive. So if, if, will the AT&T, there's this, I don't remember what it's called anymore, will their system interoperate with the one from Codegeco? There's no way. But they don't have to worry about that sort of inter cloud interoperability, because it's just for your own operations. So I think it's it's a tougher sell for platform vendors. So the Red Hat, Merantis, etc. Because what what they're doing is essentially providing the the bare metal kind of level of services that enable certain things IPAM, DHCP, basic level to layer two VLANs, that kind of stuff. And then some of these higher level service injection stuff that's all proprietary from the specific carrier requirements. So it's not, it's open source, but it's not really open. So yeah, you're you're exactly right. Great. Thank you. Thank you for your question. Let's move on to the topic of what's working and what needs work. Let me start with this. This morning, we heard a great deal from the keynote speakers about enterprise adoption and the momentum that we're seeing there. My question here, though, is have journalists and analysts stopped asking if OpenStack is enterprise ready? Are we there yet? And if not, what do we need to do to be there? And if so, what's the next hurdle? I think we were there in April of 2013. Because that was the what was that? There was a Portland summit, Jonathan came up and he said, Well, is OpenStack ready for the enterprise? Then he brings out Best Buy brings out Kojiko. He brings out the NSA who will never speak at a conference again like that. So that was weird. If you haven't seen it, check it out on YouTube. It's really kind of interesting. NSA talking openly about their technology. And it wasn't Snowden either. But so I think it's been ready since about then, give or take. But people in the media like myself, we like to ask that question just because it's a question that other vendors will ask. And certain other vendors will still ask it. Some of those vendors are now part of the OpenStack Foundation, Oracle, and perhaps VMware. But it's it's not at this stage, it's not it's not even a question. It's more a question of what's next when I think of other cloud private cloud providers, what is there? There's Azure kind of sort of in Windows Server 2016, not really maybe. There's Cloud Stack, which barely exists. There's Open Nebula, which is run by not many people. So there really isn't any alternatives anymore on the private cloud side. On the public, there's still all kinds of options. And people do stuff. One of my favorite providers that's not an OpenStack provider that seems to be growing really well with their own stack is digital ocean. If any of you have heard of it, digital oceans is wildly popular. Whenever I talk to them, they have nothing but terrible things to say about OpenStack and why it's the worst thing and why they will never use it. So there's but they're not using VMware either. They've built their own. There's there there are players like that. And there are some risks. But at this stage, it's almost a de facto standard. I've stopped asking the question a long time ago. I think we've seen as over the last couple of years, we've seen more and more people move into production with OpenStack. So that question is really moved at this point. It just so what's next? Do you think what's the next hurdle out there for the for the community for the community? I think the hurdle is getting all the projects together to act as one at the moment. I think so clearly OpenStack is enterprise ready because Walmart and PayPal and all these massive companies are using it. So I don't even think that's a debatable point. But clearly some of the areas of OpenStack are far more developed than others. You know, compute storage, these things have moved along hugely. And these are things being used in enterprise adoption, but things like sealometer, you know, they're they're less enterprise ready. And I think bringing these up as a single unified OpenStack system. That's the big hurdle to get over. Yeah, it's the it's the interop question really that that you brought up earlier on that's still an issue, obviously. Yeah, sealometer is really interesting because when the demoed vitrage this morning, the first thing I thought of is one, why have I never heard of this? And two, why aren't they just using sealometer, which was supposed to be the monitoring project that does all this? Because there's a tendency in the OpenStack larger community, the big 10 is that if your core project doesn't do it, and if you don't feel that you're going to get something in, you're just going to start another project. So there's I think one of the hurdles is continued projects for all. I think the big 10 is an interesting idea, but there is no concept in OpenStack like there is an Apache of the attic. The Apache attic is when you don't have a certain amount of contributions after a period of time, people in the community and in the former project can vote goes to the attic. It stays there. The code is still there, but it's considered dead. By the way, Apache OpenOffice was about two months ago, people thought that was going to the attic, but it's not apparently. It's still alive. Well, actually on the hurdles, though, the biggest challenge, and this is also where I have to disagree with keynotes this morning, is Amazon on the public side, because even though there were persons this morning who thought that OpenStack should not compete feature for feature with a proprietary vendor, Amazon still has more services, more capabilities, and different things on it that are not possible in an OpenStack cloud, and happy to debate on that at length. And what is it? Two weeks. They've got re-invent, and I'm sure Mr. Vogels will be up there and announcing another 60 odd new services, of which some may be available in OpenStack, some may not. So we'll see. And then the only other piece of that, one of the big pieces of news he'll probably talk about because they love talking about Lambda, which is their serverless architecture. Serverless is one of these other things that is an oxymoron. How can you be a serverless server? But that's fine. That's something that hasn't been part of the OpenStack conversation. I think it will have to be in 2017, because that's going to be an increasingly interesting part of the cloud landscape, wherever it is private, public, or otherwise. Yeah, that Lambda point is a really good point, because all the public cloud vendors, you've got Azure functions, Google cloud functions, I think, as well, and Lambda, right? Everybody's doing that, and that's something you just can't do right now in a private cloud, and that's going to be something they'll have to address. Any questions regarding that? Did you have one? His point is that there is an addict, addict, an addict, that you mentioned, Seth and Chef. And what was the other one? Yes, Chef's there. What was the other one you mentioned? Magneto DB and some other things like that that are essentially an addict phase. Well, you mentioned AWS, so let me follow up on that thought. AWS and VMware just announced a deal to run VMware software on AWS infrastructure. What does that mean to the open stack community? I'd like to see a deal where an open stack vendor runs on top of Amazon, but that won't happen because you can't do nested virtualization without a significant performance set, which is why it'll be very interesting to see how VMware works from a performance perspective and why they didn't demo it. They only announced it because nested virtualization. So you're talking ESX inside of Zen, which is what Amazon uses is going to be very interesting to get, I don't know, 50, 60 percent bare metal performance. I think it'll be corner use cases, but we'll see unless they go with some kind of other architecture. But we'll see for open stack, though, I think it's more a question of public cloud availability because especially in the United States you've got rack space on a little bit of software that uses open stack, but it doesn't seem to have quite the same breadth as it were as Amazon. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point in the future there will be some kind of Amazon open stack tie up. I think that's almost inevitable given that all of the major open stack vendors, well, let's put it this way, Red Hat, Mirantis, Suzy, at least all have their distributions available on Amazon, all of them have their respect of virtualization that's pre-cloud available on Amazon. So it's half a step, but the nested virtualization piece, I think, makes it a non-starter. Doesn't have to be dogmatic either, though, right? I mean, you can use open stack and you can still lift and shift some VMware machines to AWS at the same time and use those in parallel. Unless I'm mistaken, somebody could correct me. Since the very first open stack release there has always been AWS APIs also. So there's always been a degree of compatibility and I know that shifted inside of projects and around. But Amazon compatibility is part of the original design spec as it were for Nova. So it's just always been there. For me, this just validates the argument that end users want a bit of everything. They want private cloud for some stuff, public cloud for some stuff. I agree. I think open stack and AWS tie in would make a lot of sense, right? The APIs are there. Why not? Well, next year we're going to be talking about Azure stack too as a potential competitor. We will talk about it. You may not want to talk about it, but we will talk about it. I personally never expected never expected to see Docker run on Microsoft and I still don't quite understand it. But apparently it works. So why not? There is a company here that actually does open stack on, you know, thank you cloud base and they do open stack on Windows. Interesting use cases. I think it's enabled by way of Ubuntu if I'm not mistaken. And I think with the now the Ubuntu bash on Windows server, I think it's kind of more of a direct line. But as a security guy, I worry about it. So not so much. Very good. Okay, let's let's turn to Newton. The 14th release of software that just came out a couple of weeks ago and like your impressions, if you can share those with us, what did you find most interesting or surprising about Newton? I'll go first, I guess. The most interesting. Go first. I want to go first. I'll just follow you. I'll go last. And it's actually the topic of the last session on Thursday, I guess 440. Rob Clark, who's the PTL of the open stack security project is giving a talk on what's new in Newton. And I strongly suggest everyone go see that because Rob knows exactly what he's talking about a lot more than I do. But from a security perspective, one of the most interesting things in Newton is that there is now Kerberos proper authentication for Keystone, which didn't exist before, which means if you had a default Keystone implementation, you took it straight from mainline vanilla open stack repositories, you didn't have a fully properly secured identity store, which is not a good thing. I think the basic idea was that people were going to tie it into a proper identity store, properly encrypted and like, but it didn't always happen. So the fact that that's now directly integrated in Keystone as part of Newton is a fantastic thing because there are plenty of people that will just take plain vanilla, not know any better. And I think out of the box configurations should be secure. So security for me is is dramatically improved in the Newton release. There's all kinds of other little bits. And again, I recommend you go to Rob's session on Thursday about that. But I have no doubt in my mind that Newton is the most secure open stack release ever. And some previous releases were not all that secure. So it is saying something and tremendous effort has been has been put into security. Great, thank you. Any thoughts? I agree with Sheldon. Beautiful code, beautiful code. Maybe to some degree, the fact that there's good stuff in there, obviously, better support for bare metal and containers and all those things, right? But to some degree, the fact that it's not that exciting as a release is almost a good thing because it shows a maturing project to some degree. And we're not at the point where there's something revolutionary that gets added to every release. Nothing gets it's not that exciting. And for us as journalists, it kind of And you think that's a good thing? But well, for the good sign, it's a good sign for it's not a good sign for me because it's harder for me to write about it, but it's a good sign for the for the project before before Big Ten. My big thing on every release was what's new. OK, well, there's in Diablo, it was a glance. OK, and then you got Horizon and then you add Trove a little bit later on an ice house. And then all of a sudden you had 50 projects and you can't write about 50 projects. So it becomes a little little tougher. That said, one thing that I think the foundation could probably do, again, not the proprietary vendors are always best, but the way that VMware did their recent vSphere six and a half launch here last week was very interesting. There really isn't a whole lot new necessarily in vSphere, but talking specific about performance gains versus previous things continually pushing that envelope. And there's certainly some of that in a lot of that Newton. But that's where things get interesting, whether we call it Moore's Law or somebody else's law on how much each given release accelerates. What else I think will be very interesting is this is what we haven't talked about yet, is that this is the last normal release cycle after this. And I hope Jonathan will talk about it tomorrow because I haven't heard any much talk about it yet, is it's a little bit of a different development cycle now where the design someone is being split out into another event. And there'll be a little bit of a broken up cycle. So we'll see how that works. That's definitely coming down the pike. OK, I'm going to open it up. We have about five minutes left and I want to make sure that we have time for your questions. So let me open it up way in the back. Oh, hi, Susan. Did you hear the question? It's open stack too heavy for you want to repeat it real quickly. Sure. So today during the keynote, Huawei talked about the industrial cloud, so meaning there are vertical specific clouds. So my question is there's the whole intersection of IT and OT and there are vendors countless of them talking about this fog layer or landscape computing or this cloudlet that Accenture calls it. Do you think that open stack is too heavy for that cloudlet layer or do you think there's a rise of another more lightweight cloud orchestration? Maybe that's containers and Kubernetes. I don't know. For me, it's it depends on what we're talking about with industrial for certain types of automation processes. I think it's it's well suited. But for other more deterministic real time use cases, no, because to the best of my knowledge, open stack today does not have a well, I suppose you could. But I haven't seen any use cases with the deterministic real time kernel. That is that something happens at exactly the same amount of time, repeatedly demonstrably, which is something you need for certain types of industrial processes. Now, could you do that on a bare metal ironic deployment and do that? Maybe I think it makes sense at an organizational at a higher operational level kind of thing for industrial things, but for actual machines as it were. That you're actually going to be running software on maybe not just because of the the requirements. And I don't think virtualization, even though we talk about virtualization, the enterprise context, I don't think virtualization has come to the world of ICS and integrated control systems, not even close. A lot of these things still run system on a chip. A lot of them run VX works, which kind of sort of doesn't work that way. Not yet. So I don't know. I think it's a it's an opportunity for a company like meet occur or perhaps which you might know something about to do an overlay network. And then you abstract that out. But to directly control it. I'm not so sure. Another question. Do you have any following thoughts? Leave us leave us with a thought. Where are we headed? What's next? I think Docker is going to buy everyone an open stack. And that'll be it. Actually, that's one thing that is very interesting. And I don't have the answer, but perhaps somebody smarter than I does. One of the first times I ever met Docker was actually at an open stack summit, but you don't see Docker here. So even though on this panel, we didn't talk about I don't think open stacks should see Docker's competition. But perhaps they do. Though that said, the open stack foundation was at DockerCon in Seattle. So who knows? So I think there's more to be written on that story. The story of Docker will be interesting in the next 12 months. I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with open stack, obviously. I. The. The competition in the the public cloud, we didn't talk about public open stack and public cloud. And I think there's a story there that doesn't often get told, maybe from over age, but especially in Asia, you know, China, you've got all these public clouds. And I think we'll we'll hear quite a lot more about that. Obviously, in the US, that's not so much of an issue, but over here in Europe, where you've got data governance issues that we don't have over in the US, I think, you know, we'll see more of that. So it's maybe it's my closing thought. What surprised me about this whole event is when we were in the keynote and someone said stand up if if you contributed to Newton and like 10,000 people stood up. And I was quite surprised by that because you hear about people contributing. And as an economist, I'm naturally cynical that people are altruistic and then to see so many people giving back the things that they have done as an economist to me is quite quite compelling that OpenStack is is maturing and is going places because some would argue CloudStack had a lot of benefits that OpenStack had five years ago, but clearly OpenStack is being talked about more and is generating more excited, generating more excitement. And I think a lot of that is down to the community and the sense of helping each other out. Right. So let me close just by introducing again for those of you who may have come in late who you've been listening to. We have Sean Kerner, who writes for eWeek and Server Watch, Frederick Laudanois, who writes for TechCrunch. And we have Owen Rogers, who is an analyst with 451 Research. So let's give them a round of applause and thank them. Thank you. Thank you.