 Welcome back everyone. Day one wrap-up and insightful package here where we break down all the action. I'm John Furrier with Rob Stretchy, my co-host. Rob, you've been analyzing the conversations we've been digging into all the guests and terriying them pun intended, but just having some fun. Day one in the books of a three day coverage with a beautiful view here in Vancouver. A lot going on. We started the segment off, the day off, saying open source is in trouble because it's winning and AI's coming. Can it handle the tornado of AI and the momentum that's going to come with that? Pretty much feeling good about that. It's not going to fall over. Yeah. I agree. I think what's been interesting is everybody's brought that they're considering it but they consider it just another tool that's going to be in their tool belt. And I think some of them were even talking about how it could augment some of these projects especially in things like documentation which I think it absolutely makes a total sense but it's not going to replace the people coding and participating. Yeah. I think one of the things I observed is people who are data-centric, data thinkers love the AI story. Everyone else is like, ah, it makes so many mistakes. It's not yet ready for prime time. Ed Warnacky had a good point. Ah, it's just so many mistakes that hallucinates. Nothing to see here moving on. Like, I don't know. I think, I mean, I'm bullish on AI. I think it's going to be a game changer. I think it will shake the industry but I don't think it's going to have any effect of toppling over the open source foundation or anything that would do the, I think it might change the nature of projects but I think the AI is going to be here and I think your observation is right. I mean, I think people don't yet know or they're just getting used to the idea. Yeah. And I think, again, we're early days with AI contributing to that. People have tried and have AI in their product set but looking at it, using it more broadly, be it going through and looking at all the open source repositories and making recommendations and things of that nature make a lot of sense but as Ed put it, it's kind of like a junior dev, an intern or something like that. I kind of put it a little bit smarter than that like you said during that because I look at it and it can code better than I can. It's been a long time but still. It's like a really good intern. It's a really good intern. It's more like a data, it's more like an entry level couple of years experience person who's smart. I think it adds a lot of value. I think the one smart point about that that they brought up all day today was the common theme from the experts was the human has to know the domain that they're using the AI in. It can't be a crutch, that's my word but that's pretty much paraphrasing. What's your reaction? Yeah, I think it was also in the same vein was talked about understanding the business problem and understanding the business domain not just the tech domain because the tech domain may get better quicker but still understanding what is your company's business and how they use that open source or how they use that code still needs to get there. All right, so we checked the box there. Open source is really going to be impacted by AI. It'll be a positive effect. Second observation, let's dig into platform engineering. Again, came up again. We had the CD Foundation with Fidelity Investments. Great segment. I think that brings up and it was consistent through some other segments. Platform engineering is a thing. It has been a thing. We've been talking about it for a long time. Started out the roots of Googles, SRE, Site Reliable Engineers. Obviously DevOps is infrastructure as code but what the Fidelity interview brought up and I want to get your thoughts on this from a deeper perspective is it brings up the nuance of platform engineering versus platform features in an application and that this idea that there's platform engineering is the new standard is kind of interesting but I think people might be seeing it. It's highly nuanced. Now my opinion is that it's platform engineering is the new IT meaning it's the organization that sets the standards of the new group and then applications have platform features with APIs and dependencies. So it's system thinking applications that have developers. So you got platform engineering, platform apps and then developers that code those apps and Fidelity said they had 4,000 apps. I mean 4,000. Yeah and all of these large companies have thousands and thousands of apps at this point and they have developers working on it. I think that when you start to look at to your point platform engineering being the new IT and having setting standards I think there's going to be that and we even got into it a little bit in that discussion about well you're taking some of the creativity where it seemed by you're taking some of the creativity away from the developers and I think that's going to be really one of the big pieces of stress in the system is standards and compliance and governance versus I give everybody they can go swipe a card and use a new service or swipe a card or download a new package or a new library and I think that also led into some of the S-bomb discussions that we had with the CD Foundation in that same discussion and later on with Ed. So to that point I think there's going to be a lot more stress in the system until this is all figured out but it is the new IT. Well I want to unpack that real quick double down and come back to you on that because if you double click on what you just said it's almost as if platform engineering is legit I agree and we've been covering it for a while as you know but I think it's the cloud's problem because the cloud's success breeds the next failure opportunity that needs to be solved which is cloud was successful but now they've created another set of problems that needs to be solved which is at scale the benefits of cloud creates the ability for anyone to just build an app that's in a platform. Amazon for example is a platform. So if I'm Fidelity I have to have a cloud team to manage anything that's going to be on Amazon on my company. So you have Amazon's a platform and Fidelity's a platform. So you have a platform and a platform so I think the cloud guys have to figure this out because this is the next gen cloud they will solve this problem. Yeah. Well this is I think and you guys have been discussing this on other cube events is that the repatriation and the movement of apps between clouds and from cloud to colo and regional cloud is real and I think that this stress that we'll see among these organizations trying to understand okay we have multiple platforms. Well I just want to say and I'll just amplify I think repatriation is bullshit. I said that on the podcast let's say a year the people who are talking about repatriation don't know what they're talking about because there's repatriation is taking stuff out of the cloud bring it on premise to say equinox whatever but then there's right sizing which is not repatriation if I have cloud success I'm going to fine tune it and make some on prem cloud operations setting up for say edge or multi cloud that's resizing and refactoring not displacing you're not running away from cloud cloud is not failing cloud is winning. Now there may be some hot spots like Nats that has a translation or things in the cloud that causes some platform inconsistencies that's just a state of the art where we are right now that's not a problem. No it's not a fatal flaw of cloud cloud is winning. It's not repatriation is when you want to get out of cloud. Repatriation isn't happening where I take everything out I think where it's happening and to your point it's a I take a certain aspect of my application or a set of services out that need to run either lower latencies or be co-located with some data I think that's where people I think also people are getting a little more gun shy and having a little burnout on subscription and I think CapEx in an economy like this looks pretty nice on the books. I want to ask you before we tie off the platform engineering, platform discussion, repatriation you brought this up earlier in some interviews today and also at KubeCon the complexity equation shifts. So again you move the complexity problem solving where the next bump is and that is next gen cloud as you mentioned. This is a huge issue what's your explain more about this complexity moving train if you will. Where is it right now? What's the complexity focus that you see with cloud and open source and this next gen environment? Yeah I think we saw it in spades today. I think when you see the overlap between different projects and how you're leaving the consumers to then tie those pieces together where they all have really great attributes to them but do you need them all? And in some cases yes you do because they're very complimentary. In some cases maybe you don't need them all. Maybe once we talk to the folks from Starburst and with Trino and you once using SQL but then you may be using Python over somewhere else and how do you know which projects to go and use and to integrate your data lakes and things of that nature. I think that's where the complexity up the stack really starts to pick up and I think that that's even before you're just talking about what's my platform and how do I keep going. I think they use cases and I got to drive that but also the test of solving complexity comes down to this. Did it reduce the complexity and did it make it simpler and easier? Yeah and I think that's a question. And I think that's somewhere where the open source foundations that are out there really have to key off on and I think really take a hard look at themselves and at their projects and understand the architecture and the stack that they're building out. Okay next item on the summary is ecosystems. The roles of them, their evolution as they progress to this next generation, open source, a lot more ecosystems. Ecosystems are the mode. Are they competing against each other? Is it a feature? Is it a bug? And also how do you monitor? What's the data to monitor them? This came up with Diane Moller in her new job, data to monitor the health and also to nurture ecosystems. I believe ecosystems are a good thing but is it a lock in? Is it going to cause people to compete more? Is that just natural? What's your take? Yeah I think that again the great people we've had on today all brought a little bit different from different companies that they have their split hats that they're wearing but when you start to look at the ecosystems it's invaluable because you need that investment in the ecosystems and they're really helping people to continue to contribute to these and I think where my big question was to Diane and I still have is ecosystem health versus contributions and consumption, the contributors that are at the end consumers and what percentage of the actual contributions are coming from those consumers to me is a big piece of it because if the consumers are actually contributing back I think they're not moats and I think you have a pretty thriving ecosystem in that and I think that to me is pretty key. I think we'll see, I think like I said when Diane was on I saw the global grid forum then the open grid forum basically dissolved because they didn't have that and it was more of a moat and competing moats that were trying to be brought forward and I think that's definitely some of the things that could drive people away from open source or not contributing. Yeah, and I think open source is a series of ecosystems that need to thread together and it's okay to be decoupled and cohesive within the end of themselves so thumbs up on ecosystems. No, I agree. Transitioning that to the real quick question you mentioned the chips up and down the stack open source is moving up and down the stack so yes, you can see ecosystems emerging, the ecosystem for hardware, IoT with risk five is a lot different than the DevOps CD Foundation but they still develop, they're still developers they're still building and so you have this new phenomenon of open source up and down from silicon to the app. Yeah, and I think that's where we're seeing a lot of interesting things with the different foundations and I think that some foundations do a better job than other foundations at understanding their stack or their portion of the stack but when you start to look at things like Apache where they have such a broad approach to what's in their foundation and you start to look at the contributions where 95% of the contributions of a particular project are all from a supporting company is that truly open source or not and what happens if that company goes away because they don't have product market fit. So the arm and intel, the two dominant players risk five was a great interview that highlighted that piece of course, we've been talking about silicon on chip Broadcom and our pod too, super apps, super compute, super cloud, super apps, super open source. And I think what was interesting in the risk five discussion was the concept that embracing of openness is really actually helping those companies that have proprietary to actually sell the proprietary in a better way and in a better light. We've got a great community angle. We had a great interview here. I was supposed to do, but I got bounced out because Lisa Marie took over for me. She did a great job with Liz Rice, Aisha and Josh. They did a preview of their panels. The first new format on the queue I thought that went great. So shout out to Lisa, Liz and Aisha and Josh. Thank you very much for hijacking the queue. I mean, being a cube host, appreciate it. Great stuff. Rob, final point that wrap up day one is that it was kind of a subtext to our conversation around AI and the stability of open source and all that action is the undertone of wealth creation, new venture creation, entrepreneurship, product development, because at the end of the day software is free and it's all great. It's winning, it's won. People are going to build. They're going to build stuff for public service, public support for their own hobbies. They're going to build it for their ventures or their companies. It's software, they're going to build something. So what's your take on the entrepreneurship, startup angle, what products, opportunities do you see? What's your thoughts on that? Yeah, I think that some of the discussions we had and some of the questions I still have sitting through some of these projects and understanding what they do that I've sat out on the floor in other rooms and sat there and asked myself, is this a product, a project, or just a feature? And I think it's the product market fit aspect of it and understanding why am I doing this and is it because I brought it here, I'm really smart and I want to contribute and I'm going to build a company around this longer term but I want other people to help me build the company and take some of that legal away or take some of that marketing away. And that's going to be my, I'm going to have a product led growth in the PLG movement and I think that people get, I think mistake product market fit with PLG far too often. I call it the Immaculate Conception. It never happens, right? The idea that you come in and create a product, except for one time, that was called Twitter and they could never change the product back and even Elon Musk can't even get it right. So Twitter was the only company that I know of in the history of my life that got it right out of the gate by accident on purpose and then they could never get it right, fix it or change it. But Manfred Moser from Starburst brought this up. He says he loves to come to open source because the collaboration, he ran the Java user group in the early days. He's an OG like us. If you're a product person, you bring something to open source, you're going to get collaboration. That's, I think the key is it's so hard, as you know, entrepreneur, you know how hard it's to get product market fit. It's extremely difficult. Product market fit can be accelerated only if you have better data and better collaboration. So I think this market is still robust for product opportunities given the shift to AI and given the shift to cloud native, given the shift of the security and AI. I think it's just great. Now the question is, where do you land? Right. Yeah, and I think that to me has always been one of those things that it's not just about the contributors that are actually contributing code to these projects. I think it's about the ecosystem around them from the foundations. If they have people who understand products and are product people and some of the foundations do a better job with this and basically helping people understand is this a smaller, you know, sub project of something else? Let's package you up into that and get that product market fit but understand that you're not, you can't be alone. You can't do this all yourself. And I think that that's, the interesting thing is going to be do they take a more product management approach to these projects going forward? You know, and I think this is a classic transition from old school R&D to tinkering in the garage. Entrepreneurship form is pretty much the same. It's either by accident or you're tinkering and you discovery but you're building, you're trying things, you're working with friends or colleagues, you're riffing and you're just rubbing things that sticks together and spark comes. I think that's the magic of this open source and I said it earlier in the open was open source is very entrepreneurial but not in the classic MBA sense. It's not like, oh, start a business plan. They're builders and they're smart, right? So you've got builders, they're smart and they can see opportunity from a nerd's perspective, right? Now you have people to the equation. You got mentoring, you got access to potentially insights, hopefully like theCUBE, some of the things you're saying is really insightful like product market fit. Like they don't sit around here and talk about product market fit. They just talk about does it work? Does it solve a problem? And they go, whoa, that's interesting. I think it's very entrepreneurial. I think you can see a lot of product opportunities. The question is how will the business models progress? That's the question for tomorrow. How does the business models to change? We saw a dual license work girl around open source. Now you got, okay, I'm going to put a project in there, premium, premium. It's obviously booming. It's going to be a huge opportunity. Yeah, I agree. And I think some of the side conversations that are going on about, do you give away the software for free but own the control planes? Do you do it as a SaaS? I think there's all different ways to go about it. But I think that to me, I think we started and had this discussion earlier was around, is there going to be another red hat? Well, the final point we'll pick up tomorrow is companies funding the efforts. We heard Istio from Google, they dragged their feet a little bit too long. People were kind of, you know, miffed about that. So who's the heavy dropping the dollars in here? There's monetization needed. There is funding required. You got the big dogs like Google and Red Hats of the world out there and Amazon's here. Where's the funding? What's the responsibility of that contribution? So this is all evolving. Yeah, yeah, I think that was interesting. I mean, even with Meta joining OpenJS and that being announced during the keynote this morning, I think it has to be more of those types of people getting involved, a broader segment of companies. Well, I'll just leave a day one wrap up and you can comment on it if you want. But I think the big takeaway for me personally is the AI waves coming. I don't think there's going to be much of a toppling of open source at all. So I think we're in good shape there. They could be in trouble if they don't keep their eye on it. But the bigger issue is the power dynamic of the old model of open source, which is very foundation open source communities to now that open source is now the software industry collectively because proprietary software doesn't really exist as a dominant force. Open source is the software industry. So the industry dynamics includes entrepreneurs and the funding behind it, which is capital markets, the companies like Meta, Google and others and the developers. So the role of the big companies like Meta who leaked their AI, I mean, Rob, they leaked their AI, you kidding me? I doubt that will happen. The Google memo that was leaked, you're starting to see there could be a competitive strategy from the big companies to inject Kool-Aid into open source to revitalize as a steroid, as a growth act. What do you think about that? That's a very provocative conversation. I agree. I think it's going to be an excellent day too tomorrow when we get to talk to people and further go down this thread and understand how do we be successful and keep this going now that, like you said, open source is one, proprietary is dead. How do you get to that next level and who's going to be those contributors to that? And shout out to AWS for announcing an open sourcing cedar and some of their internal projects contributing back. And also they have the open software secure foundation, open SSF and Montmore. Again, day one, Rob, great, great commentary. Great to have you on theCUBE. Great views here, sitting here in Vancouver and beautiful weather. Great location, open source summit 2023. Wrapping up day one. I'm John Furrier, Rob Strecci. Thanks for watching.