 Okay, well welcome, welcome to the media Q&A. This is the last session right before the booth crawl. I just went by there, there are beers, there are t-shirts, the whole nine yards, but stick with us. This is gonna be fun. So the panel is entitled the journalistic perspective on the past, sorry, on the present and future of OpenSec, the present and future of OpenSec. Such heady and obscure terms. But anyway, we have an amazing panel. Myself, I'm Susan Wu. I'm the director of technical marketing at Medokura. Medokura is an open source network virtualization overlay solution. Not about me today, it's about the journalists and the panelists. So I'll start with Caroline, Caroline Donnelly. Caroline Donnelly is from Computer Weekly. I understand you're from UK. Any ideas for us? Yeah, I'm the data center editor at Computer Weekly, which is a UK publication owned by Tech Target. And we're end user focused and also cover the enterprise well, it's a little bit of SME and startup as well. Okay, let's see, Frederic Ladenois from Tech Crunch US though, not France. Not France. I'm very much not French as people like to think I am, but half German and half Dutch. But I'm the US news editor for Tech Crunch and also cover a lot of our enterprise stories, do a lot of developer stories, but cover the cloud as well. But my focus is, a lot of my focus is on startups and the startup ecosystem, like the rest of Tech Crunch really. Okay, Sean Michael Kurner, SMK. That's me. I'm a big fan of Computer Weekly and Tech Crunch. I read everybody's stuff. And I read the news stack, I see over there. So there we go. What do I write for? I'm a senior editor at multiple Quinn Street Enterprise publications, including internetnews.com where I've been for 15 years. I look old, don't I? That's what the gray hairs are from. And then my stuff is also on eWeek Server Watch, Datamation, Enterprise Networking Plan at Database Journal. And I also manage a small site called linuxtoday.com. Okay, let me set the stage a little bit and frame the panel. So this is about, from you guys, ask your toughest questions about, what do you think the present and future of OpenSack? From the media's perspective, right? It could be just as far ranging as anything. So it is an opportunity to ask about like what gets written up? What do you pick up? What's interesting? Every week there's a new product launch. Every week there's a new company joining at OpenSack. What do you see? What do you think is interesting? Maybe Carolyn, go for it. Okay, as I mentioned, computer weekly, we are end user focused. So for us, the big focus is on who's using OpenSack. They're compelling customer stories out there. Who's using OpenSack to power their digital transformations, their moves to the cloud, things like that. How are people using the technology is most important to us. They don't necessarily have to be household names, although that's always great. If they're doing something really interesting with the technology, that's always gonna get our attention. Well, sometimes we can't mention the customer name though, and they're using in stealth any ideas of what we can do. That's the worst when they tell you they have so many great customers, but don't want to talk about it. And then maybe join us. Oh. Well, he gets settled. I'll answer your question for a moment about what we cover. Our perspective is a little bit different from other publications, I think, simply because we cover a lot of the funding and VC side of the business, so the startup side. And then to get into that cycle, it's a lot of funding stories, less than product updates necessarily. So we've got a slightly different perspective. We don't care, well, care may be the wrong word, but we don't care about the customer as much, maybe, as some other publications. I care about lots of things, of course, but talking about news every week, that's actually changed a little bit. In the early days of OpenStack, that was true. But now, thanks to the foundation and the six-month release cadence, it seems to have slowed down. Talking about startups, that's actually something I also look at, but from the other side, I'm looking at the dead list as it were. And there's a few that are no longer with us, so we can give a moment of silence for our friends at Nebula. If there's anyone that used to work for Nebula, they're gone. Anyone that used to work for Pivotal, I know they got acquired by Cisco, but where did all those people go? Where do all the people go? They get hired, because there's lots of Cisco, lots of Cisco, lots of OpenStack activity. In terms of things that interest me, though, it is how people are using it in combination with existing technologies. That's one of the things that was interesting about the keynote today, and I wish there would have been a little bit more conversation about that, is how OpenStack is used in tandem with legacy technologies, whatever they might be, whether we call VMware legacy, or whether we call it non-virtualized server infrastructure, because I think that happens a lot, and it's really interesting, because as people move to the cloud, they're actually not moving away from other things. It's usually additive, so. Okay, I wanna introduce our fourth panelist. His name is Yasuyuki Matsushita. Not late, don't worry. No, okay. He's from Japan. This place is so, so, so huge. It takes a minute to come from one person. It's only 10 minutes. This is a fine ball. Okay, so my name is Yasuyuki Matsushita. I'm freelance journalist for IT industry. I mainly cover the open source software, not only for OpenStack, but the Linux itself for us, or other, you know, middleware or something like that, so. So this is my second time to participate the OpenStack summit. Last time is obviously this Tokyo summit. So I'm here, so. Okay, stick with it. Oh, what do you look for when you write an article? I mean, we're always pitching you. There's a new release, or whether there's a point release or a new feature, or we're supporting a new project. What do you look for when you're writing? I want to think that this OpenStack is pretty much open source, and lots of community people gather to create solutions. So one of the things that I always hear from the customer point of view is that OpenStack is, their release cycle is so fast. Every six months is too short to be engaged with their solutions. So maybe I'm pretty much wanted to know much about how you guys in the community make it software more reliable, more stable, those kind of things. So moving fast is a great thing because more like Azure's product software development, but most of the customers want stable releases for about a year or something, so. Okay, so now that I got you guys in the hot seat, I'm gonna put on my foundation hat. So I'm in the ARPR Enterprise Working Group, and we're actually trying to get a lot more exposure for the different projects. So if they were in the room, if the whole committee were in the room, what would you say to them? How do we gain even more coverage just for OpenStack Foundation and the OpenStack projects as a whole? Maybe we'll go with Sean. That's actually relatively easy. There's more than just OpenStack in any given calendar year with the two events. So if I was the OpenStack Foundation or somebody pitching for them, you look at the whole release calendar, whether it's VMworld, Oracle, World Open World, RSA, all the major IT tech conferences, and tie in Cloud OpenStack related activities or contributions or projects to that. So that way OpenStack becomes contextually relevant in the context of the broader IT industry and not just twice a year. I would echo that, I think. I think there's room to piggyback almost on some of the trends, your containers or something like that, where there are other conferences. The release cycle is hard for us as journalists, I think, because there's so much in every one of them. It's impossible to keep up and it's impossible to really choose what is all that important in every one of them. You don't want to hear about every VIC-10 project? Is that various? I do, but I have to package it for my readers at the end. My readers are, I still have to, I cannot just tell them, hey, Nova has this or Neutron has this, because they have no idea what I'm talking about at that point. So it's just a hard sell to talk about the individual projects, I think. It's just a tough one. I'm taking notes. I think I understood a slightly different note. They're perhaps getting to know the publications and the different angles they take on maybe the announcements. For computer weekly, I'd say we're end-user focused, but then for other sites that might deep-dive more into the technology, would it be useful for them when they announce something to have a product manager on hand who can explain the context to release or, in our case, someone who's using it, he can talk us through it, that kind of thing and making sure you're pitching completely right your announcements to the writers and you definitely covered that technology rather than taking more of a scatter-gun approach and just over-fire it off to that publication. I hope someone picks it up. So just really making sure your message is tailored in the right way, I think, is key. One of the things that I want to know that because of the Big Ten, it's lots of projects going on, right? But the Obstacle Foundation has a Jonathan or Tom is representing their current activities, but each project, we need more, you know, the leader kind of person to stand up and talk about more about the product itself. So it's hard to find the appropriate person, for example, for Magnum, who's gonna be a talk person with Magnum, Murano, those kind of things. I personally know the Magnum PTL, so we'll make sure that we arrange the briefings. But having said that, right, there are, and I wanna say like 600 companies in the open-sac ecosystem, a lot of them are startups, and if we're all pitching you like the latest and greatest, and we'll bring our user, it's still quite a bit of workload. So what are you looking for? Because we definitely don't want to mess and email Blast and engage you, but we'll do the research. We know that the users that you care about are users, but would it help to try to frame it around multiple projects, around some business impact? What are some of the hot items that we should use aside from party passes? Yeah, party passes. No, for me it's contextual relevance, but I get the best stories when I get a lot of comments back in because they say, hey, this helped me or this helped to move the ball or helped to explain something or was something different. So for me, whether it's cloud security servers, networking or traditional infrastructure, the criteria for what is a good story versus what's not is always the same. It's something that's unique, innovative, and somehow differentiated. The vast majority of pitches in my inbox, probably yours too, are PR persons and there are plenty of PR persons here, so I love all of you, they're all the best, are companies that claim they're unique and the only ones in their space, which is hardly ever true, but if you can still be differentiated in some way within that larger context, explain it as such, et cetera, and then also amongst those of us here, we're all professionals, or some of us are, I'm not, but the rest of them are. We kind of know what's real and what's not if you've been doing this for a little while because everybody gets pitches that are not so good, so you just keep it real and interesting and then if it's interesting to us, theoretically it should be interesting to the reader. As a news site, I would just say it has to be news at the end of the day, so if it's a point release, it's not news unless it ties into something bigger, maybe. It could be, maybe you bundle your funding news with a point release, that may be a strategy, for example, but we get a lot of really, really bad pitches that you get the same and everybody gets the same that don't, they have nothing to do with what we cover, that's all start up the same way, hey, I just read this story that there's nothing to do with what we do, but it was really cool, so let me tell you about this one, that somebody teaches that in PR school somewhere, I think. Whoever does that should not be teaching, but anyway. At the end of the day, we have to be a filter for our readers and so the pitch has to be pretty much, here's a story that we know your readers will be interested in. If that's not the case, it'll take me five seconds to delete that email, it'll take me one click to delete that. Actually, I won't delete it, I'll just archive it, but anyway, you never know, but it's really hard in the startup ecosystem to get through the filter, it's just really, really hard. It takes effort and it takes maybe personal connections or it takes the right VC to make the intro or something like that, it's just hard and it's not supposed to be easy, I guess, but we cannot ride up 600 startups. So that's why we're doing this panel, we want the cliff notes, we want the best way and so I'm gonna jazz it up a little bit. Is the delivery of the person who's doing the briefing, does it have anything different? Would you prefer a technologist, a product manager, a software engineer? I mean, where are the sort of the advice, right? Cause that's what we're here to get, we wanna do the right thing. Well, we'd always favor either an IT director or an engineer or anyone who can just really give us the lowdown on the technology or is using it, but what I often find is with OpenStack is that sometimes it's difficult to get engineers and people who are at the cold face using technology to talk to the press and I think that's, and I kind of get why that is because maybe they haven't been media trained, that's not part of their day-to-day job, but I think it's, in a way, it's kind of counterproductive not doing that because you want the momentum around OpenStack to grow and you want more people to use it, so really those stories need to be told. So that would be, if you can get engineers willing to talk to us and people using it, that would be amazing. That's an awesome advice, cause I heard from a big tier one company that says for them to speak, they need the VP approval just to speak at a webinar. So I think it is an awesome point to figure out how we could get approvals in advance so that the technologists or the PTLs are directly working on the code and the operators can have permission to speak. We do a fair amount of media training and almost everyone in my company can speak. Down to the SC, they can speak at the panels. Yeah, so I wanna try something really different, actually. So a lot of the companies, they may have gone on the wrong footing with you. So how do they turn that around? I mean, they may have not gotten too much coverage or they've done the wrong thing or they've given you canned PR. And what's your advice? I mean, have you seen a company that's really turned it around? They bought me beer. I think if they have gotten the wrong foot with us, I'd never close the door, as it were, if they said, right, we'll take you out for a beer, we'll take you out for a coffee, let us restate what we're bringing to the table. I'd always keep the door open. I have a shawl on the vest, true, though. In my case, the wonderful thing is if someone's offended me or if I offended someone else, which usually happens on a daily basis, that's why I write about open-source software because there's always someone else. That's also how I avoid PR people, though I love you all, of course. Is there's always open-source mailing lists and there's IRC, my handle is at Tech Journalist on Twitter and on IRC-FreeNode 24-7. And I'll just go around and just do it that way. Because for me, it's not, and it shouldn't be for anyone. It's not a personal thing, it's I'm just trying to get the story and that's all it is. So at the end of the day, that's the only thing that matters is that the readers get interesting bits. How they get it is how you make the hotdog and I don't really wanna know how people make hotdogs. There's definitely been people who've gotten, in the doghouse, I guess, at some point, just because there's some PR people I don't trust. I simply don't trust them because they've lied to me in the past and I will not work with them for the most part. There's maybe two or three of those. But for a startup, it's often that personal connection. They may have had, a lot of startups do not know how to pitch and that's okay. That's fine to some degree. At that point then it becomes more about, meet with me at an event like this, for example. Have a conversation and I think that's a good way of kind of bringing it around again at some point. We're all here because we want to talk to people at the end of the day, right? We all have full schedules, but there's usually a few. Even if it's five minutes over coffee, that that can help to kind of reestablish that relationship again, because at the end that's what it's about. It's a relationship that you're building up in. That pitch does not have to ruin that. Is that the same as what's happening in, say, Asian media, Japan, China? For China, I don't know anything about China in terms of the, sorry about that. But for Japanese media is, most of the time, you know, company creates some spokesperson as a dedicated person. But sometimes just conferences like this is that you can talk directly to the developers, engineers. But at the end of the day, it's hard to get official approval for them to speak out for his position or his work. So it's gonna be every time hard headache for me because, you know, they talk, you know, just like, you know, standing at the back of the conference room that it's very straightforward why they're doing great job or poor job, something like that. As an offshore statement for the company, it's pretty much hard to get approval. So. I think I wanna see if there are any questions now, but I have a juicy question to say for the panelists. But are there any questions out in the audience? I can't see. So what about crisis situations? I mean, we're talking a lot about, situations were bad in the open stack. I think the best example is the catastrophic collapse of Nebula, where, you know, I was talking to them, everybody knew they weren't going anywhere. They wouldn't tell anybody, but everybody knew it. And I was talking to them every other weekend, but that's a very difficult kind of thing because there is no right answer. So you just have to hope that people will tell you honestly. And then what comes out afterwards is if you have a, as a journalist, you have a good enough working relationship, people will tell you stuff off the record. And when it's a crisis situation that impacts people's lives because people have jobs and families and stuff like that, you have to have that kind of respect and sensitivity and you take things off the record, et cetera. And that's when those things have to happen, when a company collapses or there's some kind of, I deal with that all the time with data breaches. Usually in those cases, though, the other thing is you can refer them to a legal counsel and then the legal people will have a legal statement because there's liability issues. But crisis, that's the thing, you know, it's not just products and it's not just, you know, startup money and stuff. There are people who lose their jobs, right? And lose houses and stuff. So there's a sensitivity towards that that I take into account you have to and these are, there's more than just technology involved. I don't deal with those situations all that often. For us, most of the time, it's a startup shutting down quietly for the most part. They don't send a press release when they shut down. They usually, no, they don't send the press release but we'll hear about it. And it's usually at that point, everybody in the company knows what has happened so we don't have that sensitivity issue at that point. But, you know, this week we've got Intel firing 10,000 people, something like 12,000 people. You know, that's a story you have to approach with some sensitivity, I think, because there are 12,000 people right now waiting to hear whether they get fired or not. You cannot make light of that. But just from the PR perspective, I would say be transparent about it. You know, if it's something you can communicate then just communicate it and be done with it. The worst thing is just covering stuff up at the end of the day. Nobody wants to be lied to. Nobody wants to be lied to. Do you want to be lied to? I thank you. So actually, Carolyn, did you want to weigh in on that? How, how to, what do we call it? Fixer up, fixer up or something. Yeah, I mean, the situations I come across are probably most frequently that fall under that category. Probably instances where, say, cloud firms go out of business or unexpectedly discontinuous service giving kind of the customers, say, 30 days to move their data. And often is the case that we get told that by customers rather than the PR because they will forward on their, basically their notice, the notice they've been given to move their data. And depending on what's happened to the company, they won't pick up the phones, they won't pick, so we end up dealing with the customer point of view and then it's, sometimes ends up quite difficult to get a balancing viewpoint from the company itself because they won't respond to us. So we end up accidentally maybe running through, it's a little bit more one-sided because the PR community won't respond. So we try to be fair and, no, we always are fair and balanced but they sometimes don't make it that easy. I've done a poo poo before. I think I might've sent a slide or two with pre-release product or a screenshot or something that I'm not having released. So how often can I withdraw what I gave you? Actually, we generally don't give you that. We usually give you tech preview screenshots. I have never given you. You can fix that if you offer, then offer us exclusivity on the actual news and if it hasn't gone out to other people at that point. Otherwise, if it's out there, it's out there. Good point, good point. So actually, this might be a question that I think startup CEOs always ask. They always ask for things like, oh, how do I get into these mainstream publications like wired, forms, fortune, business end outsider? We spend a fair amount of time briefing tech news as well as well as some of the people that have crossed over because they used to write for tech and they had crossed over the business publications and any advice, I mean, what should the CEOs, what should they expect? Should they kind of balance and figure out and do a little sanity check or what should we say to them when they say, I want to be on wired? Well, I think you have to manage their expectations. And again, it comes down to, I think the points that have already been raised around. You know, if this isn't like, say it's a new product release and they've been working, you know, this company's been toiling over it for months and months and months. That's a really big deal when it comes to market. But if you're a news editor with your inbox and you're getting hundreds of releases all around people bringing out products, it's probably not going to float all about and you probably won't get in that. But it's, yeah, maybe manage their expectations. I understand, I understand. Of course they'll ask for it though. The reality with Forbes, unfortunately, there's nobody working for Forbes here. Forbes has become mostly a vanity publication, I think you might agree. So if somebody really wants to get there, just pay one of their writers and then just go and publish on there. There's a lot of other platforms like that. No, Forbes has a contributor network. If you were a contributor, you'd do a thing and that's it. I don't write for Forbes. I don't write for Wired. I spend more than half my time debunking Wired security stories because they're not accurate. So that's a slight against anybody from Wired. Nobody from Wired here. Okay, great. But the other truth is there's a difference between exposure and where customers read things. So I would suggest if people are really worried about where people are reading. It's not necessarily about the big names. They should find out what their customers are actually reading. It doesn't necessarily matter the name. I don't know what the name is, but see what people are reading. It doesn't matter whether they're reading me or Frederick or somebody else or whatever. And they might find that there's an old world expectation of Wall Street Journal, New York Times, et cetera. Our friends at IBM have mastered the art of getting every incremental piece of cloud news into the Wall Street Journal. If somebody wants to buy me a beer after, I'll explain precisely how that works, though I know there's some IBM PR people here. But that usually works for a certain reason, but not everybody is IBM. Not everybody is a mega to billion dollar company that's gonna do that. And not everybody needs to, because if you just wanna reach your customer, your target audience, you might do better off in a trade publication. I'm with you there. If you're an open-stack networking company, maybe the New York Times is not where you need to be to reach your customers. CEOs want a lot of things. They can't have them all. Any regional differences? To be honest, most of the CEO or management type of people now sick and tired of the United States style press releases. They hate all that kind of thing. So most of the time I try to do, to write in the article is that some kind of surprises. Why this product is so good or so bad or something like that. So it takes so much time to create the software. So every time, you know, the large news coverage like Nikkei or Wall Street Journal, it's more like a templated style of everything in the press releases. But we, I'm personally try to be just off the record, off the root of those style. So that's one thing I... You try to look for something very unique, right? Try to be, yeah. And so just really different differentiating type content. It's very tough to do that because every press release is written by the templates. It's hard to find another unique style, unique thing. Are there any startups in the room? Oh, that is surprising. There are big companies. You guys obviously have a big PR budget and yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. So like it... Oh, I'm sorry, can you get... I'm sorry, I can't see. Sorry. Yeah, please feel for it, sir. For me, that's more like personal stuff, personal information, more why he, you know, he got a little bit emotional kind of thing. So I just wanted to hear from that. Then I tried to create that not so emotional, more like, how can I say that in English? Not subjective thing, more like objective thing. We try to write more operational things now. We found that people want hands-on experience with things. So we've been doing that. And it's actually quite hard because once you write about some operational environment, you can't really extend it to someone else's environment. But Caroline, what do you think would cut through that clutter, so to speak? I think it's maybe someone who's pitching something that perhaps goes against the grain of what other people were saying. Maybe some of the most popular stories and analysis that we end up doing on computer weekly where someone has put their hand up and said, look, this isn't what we're seeing going on in the industry. And then when you dig where to speak to customers, you find out that you on earth a trend or something like that that maybe Gartner or whoever hasn't, you know, isn't on to yet and that kind of thing. So that's, you know, if someone's seeing something interesting in their day to day, then you come to us and tell us about it. That's always gonna grab my attention if it pops into my inbox. Like take a very controversial position, right? Everybody says X and then this other company says Y. Controversy's always good. Without turning it into bullshit at the end of the day. Because there's a danger there. I'm just gonna be controversial for the sake of it. And I've seen quite a few of those. I was just, what am I supposed to do with this? I know you're wrong, I'm not gonna interview you. To cut through, I've done this for so long and I still don't know what really cuts through at the end of the day. But getting, just having, being precise, pitching the right person that you've seen cover something, those kinds of things, just be very clear about this is the news, I come from the news site more than analysis for the most part. So this is what's new, this is why it's interesting. Sometimes three sentences are better than a two-page press release for those kinds of things. Because you only have so much time with every pitch and that decision happens pretty quickly at the end of the day. I'll make it real easy, it's just brevity. I like the Twitter pitch, if you can pitch me and explain what you're doing in 140 characters or less, you're golden. I hate the Twitter pitch, I like my, That's right, I'll just copy and paste what he wrote, which is easy. So at the end of the day, know your press person right before you pitch, go ahead, sir. Thanks, Susan. Yeah. Let me ask my friends and colleagues on the panel. Since this is an open source conference, oftentimes when we're producing copies for folks in the open source community about the open source community, it's inevitable that somebody reading your copy is going to be more knowledgeable about the subject than you are. Knowing this, how does this fact improve the way that you address the reader in your story and are you 100% certain that it's improvement? I know if at least one reader hasn't called me a moron in the comments and I haven't done my job, right? I assume that I'm the stupidest person in the room, but that's where the quality of getting the right person to give me comments on the issue at hand is, because then it's their expertise, not mine. And then the other thing, unfortunately, that tends to happen, and I don't know how much you guys are doing a new stack like that, but when it's something that might be questionable, unfortunately, I'll just drop it rather than try trouble. But then the other thing is what also happens, and this is why I love it when people leave comments, is in my case, I think it's somewhere between five and 10% of the stories they'll do in any given year were driven by comments, not necessarily negative, but things that I might have missed. I'm not infallible, it's great. You see it as an opportunity for the next story, the next lead, et cetera, and to continue the narrative. I'm with you there. I mean, I just assume, I assume I don't know everything, right, but if I didn't, I'd be stupid probably, right? Maybe I am, but anyway. So, comments are very useful for us just to have that conversation with the reader. We're just redesigning our common platform, for example, to have a better conversation, because right now a lot of the conversation we have with our readers is, hey, here's something open stack, and they'll go, you could work from home for $6,327, and yeah, so that's spams. I'm not responding to that, and it wasn't $6,320, it was about $38.50. Well, it was worth it, but I just, just like Sean Michael, I think, sometimes when I'm not 100% sure, I'll tend to just leave it out of the story. Sometimes I'll risk it, and usually somebody, you've got a gut feeling about a lot of these things. I think you know if something is right or not right if somebody was feeding you BS or not. So, you make that decision with every story where you're gonna go with it, but for the most part, I'll make conservative there and I'll just leave it out, or I'll just make sure I'll ask a lot of questions. That's really what it comes down to, ask a lot of questions to the right people in the company and make sure they're not feeding you something that's wrong at the end of the day. Carolyn, did you win away in there? No, I think not. Okay, then I have a question that I know my colleagues in the room have asked before, and maybe they've made similar observations. So, for the press, if a press person would write an article, they usually don't share it with you in advance, but an analyst, like Gartner, you see, or whatever, an analyst would generally share the data. What's the difference? I mean, it's still about the same kind of, we're giving you the same content essentially. So, what's the difference? What's going on? It's a bit of a gray area. We, on Computer Weekly, we do get requests from people asking, particularly on case studies, do we get copy approval? And we always say no. Because... Even a case study. Yeah, even a case study. And because we like to think that we know what we're writing about, or we have interviewed people who know the area inside and out, so we shouldn't have to send it over to someone to say, oh, can you check our work? So, we never do it. Never do it. That's what I've seen. That's probably the big difference between, I guess, press and analysts. And so, many of us in startup world, we wear both hats, so we have to kind of know which is which. So, we spend a lot of time figuring out your journal, your publication, what you write about. We study you as the way we study VCs. Because you're investing. You're investing time and money in a way, actually, to cover us. Thank you. Any last questions before we adjourn? Over here. Sorry, sir. So, we issue as an open source project following the same trends, or is it different in some way that makes it unique? I would say it's exceptionally unique. There's never been a project with this many diverse goals. As it were, Linux in and of itself has no goals. It's just people contribute in and then it migrates in its own way. And Torvald's just make sure that people stay in order. The Apache Software Foundation kind of sort, and Eclipse also kind of sort of tried to do similar things, but never really got the same kind of massive interest. As I say, OpenStack has done in only five years. Apache's been around 10, 12, 25 years, depending 10 on the foundation side, et cetera. But Apache Software Foundation, I see is probably the closest to what I think of in terms of open source evolution, but there is no Apache stack. There might have been at one point in time for Java. Doesn't exist today. But OpenStack is a stack of interrelated, potentially interoperable open source projects, whether it's Apache or Eclipse, neither of them quite do that. So it's a little bit different. Eclipse has tried Apache, like I said, kind of sort of. So this is a little bit unique territory. The other thing that's very different is now thanks to this big tent thing, which is both a tremendous win and a tremendous challenge, is because there's so many projects, what I've seen in the last cycle, at least the last two cycles even, are projects that are run essentially as minor five-doms by individual companies, and then companies will use them as competitive differentiators against their peers. That doesn't quite happen. Well, it does a little bit in Apache and Eclipse, but that's also a little different. Also, this big tent approach is vastly different than anything that exists in Apache or Eclipse now. With the incubator and integrated release model, which OpenStack had prior to Liberty, that was exactly the same as Eclipse. Now what OpenStack is following is a very different path. And it's interesting to see where it'll go. Sean Michael knows a lot more than I do about this. I would just say, just in terms of scale and the number of companies involved and the way they are involved, it's just, for me, I've not done open source coverage for that long, but it's pretty unique to me. I don't see any other project right now, at least, that comes anywhere close, so. Carolyn, then, about UK, what's going on? All I'd really add to that is that, yeah, I think it is unique, mainly in terms of the rate at which it seems to be maturing and seems to be ramping up in the enterprise at the minute, so, yeah. And Japan, long history of Linux. Oh, yeah, because Linux is more like, more than a Linux personal project, more human centric, but for OpenStack, it's more like organizational governance is so strong, creating community with the developers and users, which is pretty much unique for me. I think there's still a question. So do you guys see either Cloud Foundry overcoming Eclipse as people move more towards the business side, not Eclipse, over OpenStack, because I'm wondering, as this gets so big, is it sustainable by itself, or will the business impact of something like doing Cloud Foundry, which is more business-facing, eventually overtake the kind of OpenStack type of ecosystem? Are you asking about Cloud Foundry itself, or? Well, yeah, so just conceptually, so let me try rewarding it. So, will the business impact of something more like Cloud Foundry, which is more business-focused and application-focused, end up eclipsing the power of OpenStack, where today we care about the OS, we don't really care about the fact that it's running on Intel AMD or an ARM CPU, so I'm wondering, is OpenStack today the same thing as Intel AMD and ARM, and it's gonna be supplanted by something running on top of it like OpenStack, or do you think OpenStack will eventually grow so large that it engulfs things like OpenStack, and they become now projects of OpenStack and not separate things? That's a tough question. That assumes that Cloud Foundry will be successful, and then given that they have an open-source foundation, given that IBM, HP, Pivotal, EMC Federation support it, you might think that they might be, and I think in their next release, they have this thing called Diego, which is more of a container-focused thing, then there's also Red Hat with OpenShift, so absolutely, because OpenStack is fundamentally infrastructure, OpenStack has failed in its efforts to try and do application-centric stuff, so for those that are only interested in applications, yeah, it's OpenStack inside, it's just pure infrastructure, but it's not a straight line between Cloud Foundry to Cloud Foundry and OpenStack as much as it is between, say, the wind-tell conspiracy, where you have Microsoft on Intel. It's not nearly closely as integrated, and I think what people will find is there's gonna be multiple use cases, right? So you're gonna have the OpenShift pure docker-only approach, you'll have Cloud Foundry approach, but OpenStack itself has no native application-generating tools. It's not a pass, it's not a real DevOps approach. The other thing that's kind of sort of interesting where you bypass that is, and I starting to see this already in the Merantys, guys do this a little bit, is with Merano, so people will build apps, then push it to an app catalog, then do it that way. Doesn't really quite answer your question, but I hope that gives you some color. You know, so we're getting out of time, so I wanna invite each of the panelists, maybe give one prediction about the future of OpenStack. Maybe start prediction. Future of OpenStack, oh man, that's gonna be tough, but maybe in the near future, like two or three years from now, OpenStack Summit gonna be in China. I think we'll see more and more enterprise using it, but it'd be interesting to see just what kind of shape that takes if it is more production workloads, or is it gonna remain more kind of test and dev. I hope it's, you know, production, but yeah. I suck at predictions. I'm gonna say more enterprise, maybe more public cloud adoption as well, it's slowly happening, and definitely more telco. Yeah, more of, well, the obvious thing was if the momentum continues, that it would be more of the same. The outlier would be, and I heard a couple of people talk about this at this summit already in some sessions, is the potential of what happened with Unix, where we get forking at some point, because there are so many vendors that have their own distribution that seem to have a particular slant. If some of these interoperability, def core, ref stack kind of approaches do not pan out, then the medium term, three to five year risk, is what happened to Unix, what happened with Unix is there was something called a POSIX standard, and then it's split. So AIX, HPUX, Solaris functionally were all supposed to be interoperable. Once they forked from each other, they never were, and that's how Linux was able to emerge as it were. So that's the risk, I hope it doesn't happen, but if that's a pie in the sky, bad luck crystal ball prediction. Well said. So huge round of applause for our panelists. Sean, Michael Kurner, Frederick, Lardinois, Carolyn, Donnelly, and Yasuyuki Mashista. Thank you very much. Beers in the other hall.