Podcasts about gce

Lior Lieberman is a software engineer lead at Google Cloud focusing on GCE, Kubernetes, and Service Mesh. He is a leading contributor to Gateway API and the maintainer of Ingress2gateway.   Do you have something cool to share? Some questions? Let us know: - web: kubernetespodcast.com - mail: kubernetespodcast@google.com - twitter: @kubernetespod - bluesky: @kubernetespodcast.com   News of the week NFTables mode for kube-proxy | Kubernetes   Kubescape becomes a CNCF incubating project Announcing the Beta Release of OpenTelemetry Go Auto-Instrumentation using eBPF | CNCF  New Phippy Book Guidelines: Enhancing Community Access & Engagement | CNCF Links from the interview Lightning Talk: Why Service Is the Worst API in Kubernetes, & What We're Doing About It - Tim Hockin GitHub - kubernetes-sigs/ingress2gateway: Convert Ingress resources to Gateway API resources Migrating from Ingress Gateway API Inference Extension 0.1.0 release README on GitHub kubernetes-sigs/ingate - an Ingress & Gateway API Controller GAMMA - https://gateway-api.sigs.k8s.io/mesh/  

Talk 8 Between Brentwood and Brasenose (1956-59) Part 1 Welcome to Talk 8 in our series where I'm reflecting on the goodness of God throughout my life. I left school in December 1956 and started my course at Oxford in October 1959, a period of almost three years. In many ways it seemed a long time to wait, but in the plan and purpose of God they turned out to be highly significant years. I gained experience in teaching. I met Eileen, the girl who was to be lifelong partner. And I received the life-changing experience of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. But first, I need to explain how I got my place at Oxford and why I had to wait three years before taking it up. Gaining my place at Oxford In 1956, at the age of seventeen, I had already passed my A Levels and had decided to stay on at school a further year to take S Levels the following summer. S Levels – the S stands for Scholarship – were the highest level of GCE exams that you could take and were designed to support your application to university, especially if you were hoping to go to Oxbridge. However, as things turned out, I did not need to complete my S Level course because in the first term of that school year I was awarded a scholarship to read Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Brasenose College, Oxford. Our form master, Mr. Rennie, had suggested that some of us might like to spend a few days in Oxford and take some examinations at Brasenose College with a view to obtaining a place there. As there was only one place available I was not expecting to get it. But I decided to go even though my friend, John Bramble, was going too and I thought he was far more likely to be successful. He had always come higher than me in class and had gained better A Level results than I had. There were about eight of us altogether, each of us taking different exam papers, generally depending on what subjects we had taken at A level. There was just one paper that was the same for all of us, an English essay, the title of which was unknown to us until we sat down in the examination room. And that title was WORDS. The length of that exam was three hours and, although some boys started writing almost immediately, I spent the first 45 minutes planning my essay. I can't remember in great detail the contents of that essay but I know that I concluded it by talking about Christ, the word made flesh, the divine logos, the ultimate revelation of God Himself. I have sometimes wondered if the reason I was awarded the scholarship rather than any of my colleagues was that the Lord was honouring me because I had honoured him. Of course, I can't be sure about that, but he had helped me through my A levels when I had honoured him before the whole class when my History master had told me that I was likely to fail, and I have always sought to give God the glory for any academic success I may have achieved. And I discovered later that, of all the papers I sat during that visit to Brasenose, that essay on WORDS was awarded the highest grade – an alpha. But when I received a letter from Brasenose offering me a scholarship a few weeks later, I was totally amazed and, after discussing it with my father, I came to the conclusion that this had to be God. But there was just one problem. The place they were offering me was for three years later in October 1959, after I had completed my two years National Service. However, the Government had already agreed to abolish National Service and were in the process of phasing it out gradually. They did this by delaying the ‘call-up' which meant, in my case, that by the time they would have called me up, there would be less than two years before my course at Oxford was starting. In short, I would not have time to do National Service and, by the time I had finished my course at Oxford, National Service had been abolished completely. So, having obtained my place at Oxford, I decided to leave school at the end of term in December and start to earn some money. And at the time there was a great shortage of schoolteachers, as a result of which young people who had passed their A levels could do ‘uncertificated teaching' before going to university, and so I ended up doing almost three years' teaching before I went to Oxford. Gaining experience in teaching And, surprisingly enough, it started at the very school I had just left. Or, to be more precise, it was at the Preparatory School attached to Brentwood and standing just on the other side of the main playing field. One of the teachers was on sickness leave for a few weeks and I was asked if I would take their place as they taught French and Latin which were of course my two main A Level subjects. As it was a boarding school, I was required to live in and be the housemaster for some of the boys, which mainly involved making sure that they were in bed on time and not talking after a certain time. I was only there for a few weeks (January 15 to February 16), but I enjoyed the experience very much and learnt a great deal, not least of which was that, if you prepared your lessons thoroughly, you had relatively few problems with discipline. After Brentwood Prep I was told by the Essex Education Committee that another job was available in Brentwood, at the Church of England Primary School in Coptfold Road, only a few hundred yards from my old school. A teacher was on maternity leave and a replacement was needed until July to look after her class of 8 to 9 year-olds. The pay wasn't great as I was not a qualified teacher. It worked out at about half what I would have been paid if I had been qualified. And, of course, this was not a residential post, so I needed to travel on two buses each day to get there from Hornchurch. But I accepted the job anyway.   As in most primary schools, a teacher was responsible for teaching their class throughout the day all the subjects on the timetable. That was not a problem, but learning to keep discipline was another matter. My expectations were based on the level of discipline I had experienced as a pupil at Brentwood and the few weeks I had spent teaching at Brentwood Prep. Coptfold Road was quite another matter. Many of the children came from a less fortunate background and some of them were of rather limited intelligence. As a result, and due to my own lack of training and experience, and lack of any supervision, I found the two terms I was in charge of that class extremely difficult, and was quite relieved when I heard towards the end of the summer term that Mrs. Istead, the teacher who had been on maternity leave, was returning the following Monday. So on the Friday before she was due to return I was clearing my desk after school when the headmaster, Dr. Ward, asked me what I was doing, adding, You're not leaving, are you? And he offered to give me a different class to teach and keep me on indefinitely until I went up to Oxford. So I decided to stay and, as things turned out, I was there until the end of September 1959, my ability to keep discipline improving greatly with experience and the help of a Day School Teachers' Conference organised by the Baptist Union and held at St. Augustine's College, Canterbury in August 1957. As I look back on those years of teaching before I went to Oxford, I think I can see why God allowed it to happen that way. While I was waiting I was rather frustrated, thinking, Why am I teaching when God has called me to the ministry? But little did I know then that his plan for me was that most of my ministry would be teaching. And although the major part of my teaching ministry has been to a different age group, even when teaching at degree level in Bible Colleges around the world, I have found that God has given me the ability to teach at a level that everyone can understand, something I repeatedly hear from grateful listeners. And perhaps at least part of that ability is a result of those years I spent teaching less able children while waiting to go to university. God knows what he is doing, and he always has a purpose in what appear to us to be pointless pauses in our lives. But that brings me to an even more significant purpose in those years of waiting, for it was in those years that I met Eileen, the girl I was to marry and who was to be the ideal person to support me in my ministry. Meeting Eileen It was an incredibly hot day that Saturday afternoon. So hot in fact that the railway line buckled in the heat of the sun. It was Saturday 29th June, 1957 and we had arranged a youth rally where the young people from Elm Park Baptist would meet up with Hornchurch Baptist young people for fun and games in the park followed by an open air service. Although the churches were only two miles apart, before then we had had little contact with them, so I actually knew none of the young people there. People have often asked me how I met Eileen and I have usually replied, In the park! After a game of rounders, we sat down in groups and had a picnic tea. I noticed a group of four rather attractive girls sitting a few yards away and thought I would like to take a closer look! So I got up and walked towards them and happened to notice that one of them had taken her shoes off. On impulse, I picked up one of the shoes and ran off with it, with nothing in particular in mind other than just having a bit of fun. Needless to say, the owner of the shoe ran after me but was at something of a disadvantage as she had bare feet. I soon disappeared from view and hid the shoe under the bridge that spanned the park lake. Of course, when she caught up with me, I felt a bit of an idiot and showed her where the shoe was. We got into conversation and I asked her if she would like to come to our Saturday evening youth club which took place after the open air service. She agreed and, after sharing a song sheet at the open air, I found out that her name was Eileen and that she was just six days older than me. After youth club I walked her home and kissed her goodnight. And that was the beginning of a relationship that lasted, with a short break, for 67 years and which ended only when the Lord called her home at the age of 85. We agreed to meet again some time the following week, but the next day, after attending church in the morning, I decided to go to Hornchurch Baptist for their evening service in the hope of seeing Eileen again. She and her friend were sitting in the choir and her friend noticed me in the congregation and said to Eileen, He's here! After the service we went for a long walk in the park and from then on were to see each other just about every day. I discovered that Eileen had attended Romford County High School and had left after taking her O levels. At the time she was working at Barts (St. Bartholemew's Hospital) in London, but a year later she accepted a post in the Dagenham Education Office which was closer to home. But before that, I have to confess that there was a short break in our relationship during the last few months of 1957. I mentioned earlier that I attended a conference in Canterbury during the last week in August of that year. Everyone there was a qualified schoolteacher with the exception of me and one other person, a girl called Irene who was the same age as me and had been accepted to train as a teacher at the Chelsea College for Physical Education in Eastbourne. Irene was extremely attractive, highly intelligent, and very good at sport – she was nearly good enough to beat me at table tennis! But she was having doubts about her faith, and I spent some time with her trying to encourage her. As a result we were both very attracted to each other and, to cut the story short, because I have never been proud of myself about this, we started to see each other after the conference was over. When I next saw Eileen I told her, without mentioning Irene, that I felt we had been seeing too much of each other, that our relationship had been getting too intense – which it probably was – and that I thought we should cool it and not see each other for a while. She later told me that she had not been too concerned because she was convinced that if I was the right one for her, the Lord would bring me back to her. Which he did. The relationship with Irene lasted only a few weeks – until the middle of October, when I went to Eastbourne for a weekend to see her at her college. In short, she jilted me! But not long before Christmas the young people from Hornchurch Baptist came to Elm Park to take our Friday evening YPF meeting. And who should be singing in the choir but Eileen. I think we spoke briefly after the meeting, just polite conversation, but it was enough to arouse my interest in her again. So I sent her a Christmas card, and she replied by sending me one and enclosing this short poem: I do believe that God above created you for me to love. He picked you out from all the rest because he knew I'd love you best. I had a heart so warm and true, but now it's gone from me to you. Take care of it as I have done, for you have two and I have none. Not the best poetry in the world, but it touched my heart and I wrote to Eileen – I still have a copy of that letter – asking if she would like to resume our relationship. And from January 2nd 1958 hardly a day passed without our seeing each other.  

Some public education wins in the US after the election. ACT wins extra schoolfunding. AEU welcomes continuing fee-free TAFE. Australia's in outer suburbs lacking in infrastructure esp. schools. UK- private schools aren't producing better students, state schools out-perform elite high-fee schools on the GCE level. US- wrestlemania comes to punlic education? As a parent's eldest child sits final exams, they are grateful for the teachers who helped parent the student.Great State School of the Week - Birchup P-12 Collegewww.adogs.info

Bruce and Lars are live on stage (and mostly unedited) at GigCityElixir in Chattanooga Tennessee hosting a great conversation of GCE folks on stage for some "hot takes." Please note, this episode contains some explicit language. We want to connect with you! Twitter: @BeamRadio1 Send us your questions via Twitter @BeamRadio1 #ProcessMailbox Keep up to date with our hosts on Twitter @akoutmos @lawik @meryldakin @RedRapids @smdebenedetto @StevenNunez and on Mastodon @akoutmos@fosstodon.org @lawik@fosstodon.org @redrapids@genserver.social @steven@genserver.social Sponsored by Groxio (https://grox.io) and Underjord (https://underjord.io)

Oggi a Cult: Giuseppe Isgrò su "Super Sidera - Visioni di Hildegard von Bingen" al Padiglione Chiaravalle; il ricordo di Paola Gassman di Enrico Castellani, co-fondatore di Babilonia Teatri, con cui Gassman/Pagliai avevano lavorato a una speciale versione di "Romeo e Giulietta"; nel 250° del compositore Gaspare Spontini le iniziative della Fondazione Pergolesi Spontini; Lara Fremder, sceneggiatrice e regista, al suo esordio letterario con "L'ordine apparente delle cose" (GCE)...

Vocabulary : preschool ( pre-nursery- nursery) elementary school junior high school high school college/university graduate school primary secondary university GCE – general certificate of education associate's degree (UDT(DUT)/ ATC(BTS)) bachelor's degree (BA/BS) master's degree (MA/MS) doctorate degree (PhD/MD) scholarship grant loan graduate assistantship

Derek "Del Boy" Trotter, chairman of Trotters Independent Traders, employs his younger brother Rodney into his company. Later, at their local pub, The Nag's Head, Rodney meets Del's friend Trigger, in order to buy some briefcases. On introduction, Trigger acknowledges to Del that he is already acquainted with his brother Rodney but then immediately calls him "Dave".[2] Del negotiates the price of the briefcases down from £17 to £8, and tries to dupe Trigger by claiming the price for the 25 is £175, when it is actually £200. Rodney, however using his GCE in mathematics as proof of his credibility, proves to Trigger that Del's figures are wrong. It soon emerges that not only were the cases stolen, they are also rejects; the combination for them is locked inside. Rodney advises Del to throw the cases in the river. Rodney then suggests to Del that he be made the partnership's financial adviser, on the grounds of him having two GCEs (in maths and art). Del, however, is not happy about this due to Rodney's behaviour regarding the briefcases. The row between the brothers is soon made worse by the latter's buying a cheeseburger for Grandad instead of an Emperor burger due to lack of funds. Grandad gets angry with Rodney as well, and Rodney decides to leave the partnership and venture to Hong Kong. He wishes to go there to see a girl, "Shanghai Lil". She was at art college with Rodney but was deported after they were expelled for smoking cannabis, for which Rodney received a £300 fine and a suspended sentence. The next day, Del trawls London, looking for Rodney and attempting to sell the briefcases, having already previously failed with his telephone contacts. Returning home after having failed to achieve either goal, he is soon joined by Rodney, who only got as far as the Shangri-La doss house in Stoke Newington due to running out of money and forgetting his passport. After they make up, Del informs Rodney that he took his advice and "chucked the bleeding lot in the river", but they floated

This Day in Legal History: Pledge of AllegianceOn December 28, 1945, a significant moment in American educational and legal history occurred when Congress officially recognized the Pledge of Allegiance, urging its recitation in schools nationwide. The Pledge, originally composed in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister, was intended to mark the 400th anniversary of Columbus Day. It underwent a critical change in 1954 when Congress added the words "under God," reflecting the era's heightened religious sentiment during the Cold War. This inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge later sparked legal challenges, notably involving Michael Newdow, who contested his daughter's school district's policy of daily Pledge recitation. Newdow argued that this practice infringed upon the separation of church and state. His case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which, in a pivotal decision, ruled that Newdow lacked standing, thereby not addressing the constitutional issue he raised.The legal journey of the Pledge of Allegiance illustrates the dynamic relationship between national identity, religion, and education in the United States. Over the years, the Pledge has been both a symbol of unity and a point of contention, reflecting the nation's evolving perspectives on patriotism and religious expression. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, among other institutions, has provided extensive resources and insights into the ongoing debates surrounding the Pledge.The recognition of the Pledge by Congress in 1945 marked a formal endorsement of a practice that had already taken root in many schools. It solidified the Pledge's role in American culture, embedding it into the daily lives of millions of students. This action by Congress highlighted the importance of patriotic rituals in fostering a sense of national unity, especially in the aftermath of World War II.Today, the Pledge remains a staple in many educational institutions, symbolizing allegiance to the nation while also serving as a reminder of the ongoing discussions about the role of religion in public life and the meaning of patriotism in a diverse society.Apple Inc. is engaged in a complex legal and technical battle following a U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) ruling that some of its Apple Watch models infringed patents held by Masimo Corp., a medical-device maker. The ban initially led to a halt in U.S. sales of the Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2, but Apple won a temporary reprieve from a federal appeals court, allowing the sales of these models to resume.Apple's multifaceted strategy to counter the ban includes appealing the ITC decision, developing software modifications to avoid patent infringement, and submitting these changes to U.S. customs for approval. The company hopes this approach will enable it to continue selling non-infringing versions of the devices. The Federal Circuit has given the ITC until January 10 to respond to Apple's request for a stay of the ban for the duration of the appeal process.Despite the current pause in enforcement of the ITC's decision, the import ban stands. The outcome of the upcoming Customs tribunal will be crucial, as a favorable decision would reinforce the ITC's original ruling and could impact the ongoing appeal. Apple's legal efforts are accompanied by attempts to find technical workarounds, such as software updates that might modify or disable the contested pulse-oximetry feature.This situation is unusual, as large companies like Apple typically settle such disputes rather than endure prolonged legal battles and sales disruptions. The company's assertive approach may indicate a strategic decision to demonstrate its unwillingness to settle in patent disputes. Apple is also pursuing legal action against Masimo in Delaware district court, alleging infringement by Masimo's W1 watch.The appeals court's pause is expected to last around three weeks, coinciding with Customs' decision on the redesigned products. If Apple does not receive a favorable ruling from Customs, it has the option to appeal to the US Court of International Trade and potentially further to the Federal Circuit. This protracted legal battle illustrates the intricate interplay between patent law, technological innovation, and corporate strategy.Apple's ‘Unusual' Watch Fight Continues After Pause on BanIn 2023, New York's legal scene, often a trendsetter for the U.S. legal industry, experienced significant changes and challenges, raising questions for the year ahead. Two of New York's oldest law firms, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan and Shearman & Sterling, faced major transitions. Stroock is dissolving, while Shearman plans a merger with Allen & Overy, indicating a shift in the legal landscape.These developments reflect broader industry headwinds such as intense competition for talent, inconsistent client demand, and a slowdown in the global mergers-and-acquisitions market. Consolidation became a notable trend, with numerous law firm mergers throughout 2023, including high-profile combinations like Maynard Cooper & Gale with Nexsen Pruet, and Holland & Knight with Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis. A total of 41 law firm combinations were completed in the first three quarters of 2023, compared to 37 in the same period in 2022.In response to a slower growth environment and cost pressures, small and regional law firms are expected to pursue more mergers and acquisitions in 2024. Meanwhile, the end of 2023 saw major law firms, starting with New York's Milbank, raising associate salaries, with first-year associates now starting at $225,000. These salary hikes have raised concerns about whether less profitable firms can keep pace.Another significant shift is occurring in the structure of law firm partnerships. The traditional single-tier partnership model, where all partners share ownership, is dwindling. Firms like Cravath and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison are reportedly adding or considering salaried partner tiers. However, some firms, like Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, are holding onto the single-tier partnership model for now.These changes mark a transformative period for New York's legal firms, reshaping how they operate, compete, and adapt in a rapidly evolving industry.New York legal scene faces tests after tumultuous 2023 | ReutersIn 2023, lawsuits against major chemical companies for polluting U.S. drinking water with PFAS, or "forever chemicals," resulted in over $11 billion in settlements. These chemicals, used in numerous consumer and commercial products, are known for their persistence in the environment and human body. With new federal regulations and growing awareness, 2024 is expected to see an increase in litigation and settlements related to PFAS contamination.Companies like 3M, Chemours, Corteva, and DuPont de Nemours have faced thousands of lawsuits, many consolidated in multidistrict litigation (MDL) in South Carolina. These include claims by water utilities for cleanup costs and personal injury claims linked to health issues caused by PFAS exposure. A significant settlement was reached in June, with 3M and water utilities agreeing to a $10.3 billion settlement, followed by another involving DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva for $1.19 billion.U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel, overseeing the MDL, has warned that these lawsuits could pose an existential threat to companies facing PFAS claims. The litigation's potential liabilities could lead defendants to settle to avoid large verdicts or seek bankruptcy protection, as seen in the case of Carrier Global subsidiary Kidde-Fenwal Inc in May.In 2024, legal experts anticipate more PFAS-related lawsuits, including those against consumer brands and more personal injury claims. At least one trial is scheduled in August in the MDL, focusing on firefighting foam manufacturers. Additionally, the process for selecting bellwether trials for personal injury cases is underway, with trials expected for various PFAS-related health issues.Outside of South Carolina, other trials are anticipated, including one involving North Carolina residents and another by Maine homeowners against a local paper mill. More settlements between chemical firms and state attorneys general are also expected, following the trend set by New Jersey and Ohio in 2023.The number of consumer class action lawsuits against companies producing PFAS-containing products like clothing, dental floss, and food wrappers is also on the rise. With the EPA moving forward with regulations that could set enforceable limits for PFAS in drinking water and potentially designate some as hazardous under the U.S. Superfund law, a surge in litigation is likely to continue into 2024 and beyond.‘Forever chemicals' were everywhere in 2023. Expect more litigation in 2024 | ReutersThe U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has filed a lawsuit against Grand Canyon University for engaging in deceptive advertising, illegal telemarketing practices, and misrepresenting itself as a nonprofit organization. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, targets Grand Canyon Education Inc (GCE), its CEO, and the university.The FTC's complaint alleges that the university misled prospective doctoral students regarding the cost and course requirements of its doctoral programs. It also accuses the university of deceptive and abusive telemarketing practices. The FTC contends that despite claims of being a nonprofit, Grand Canyon University operates for the profit of GCE and its stockholders, with GCE receiving 60% of the university's revenue.The Arizona-based university has denied these allegations, calling them unsubstantiated, and expressed confusion over the federal government's decision to target a Christian university positively addressing issues in higher education.This lawsuit follows a significant $37.7 million fine imposed on the university by the U.S. Education Department for misrepresenting the costs of its doctoral programs. According to the Education Department, fewer than 2% of the school's doctoral program graduates completed their program within the advertised cost, and almost 78% of these students took five or more continuation courses. The university has stated its intention to refute the allegations vigorously.US FTC sues Grand Canyon University for deceptive advertising, illegal telemarketing | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

There were five or six speakers, a few more listeners, a lot of monsters, some designers in the darkness. Everybody knew nothing. Welcome to Episode 75 of The Last Standee Podcast! For this episode, we are back doing what we do best, and that's idly chatting about boss battlers (yeah, we could have done a bit earlier, but we wanted the entire crowd of speakers to be on the same page). In this episode, we begin discussing the Gambler's Chest Expansion of Kingdom Death: Monster! Yeah, thankfully this one will have content for a few episodes more, but here we are, to begin with - a "first and somewhat curated impressions" of the GCE overall and (almost) the first 12 Lantern Years of a People of the Dream Keeper campaign. Nuh uh, won't spoil anything here (and if you listen without skipping, the spoilers will be clearly marked!) - so I'll just leave you with the episode, with an almost full crowd (congratulations David)!

First episode of 2023! And we are starting with an amazing weight loss journey with Jenna Leveille. About Jenna: I've shared my weight loss story in the hopes of helping others who were struggling and founded the free community Getting Closer Every Day. I wanted to offer support where people felt safe and encouraged during their journey.  After being pregnant with my daughter, I had trouble losing weight and started crash dieting.  That yo-yo dieting led me to be stuck for over 13 years.  When I finally decided to dedicate more time for myself and made myself accountable, that's when I lost 140lbs. I want everyone to know that when you work hard and dig deep that you have the power to change your life!  Whether you are trying to lose weight, get a better job, be more confident, or just trying to live the happiest life you can, you can get closer every day with community support, wellness tools, and human kindness.  You don't have to journey alone!   GCE is everything wellness for anyone!  We have teamed up with the best products, services, and retreat getaways that offer great discounts for our community.  To take advantage of these offerings, go to our getaway and partners pages and use our dedicated links and promo codes. Join our movement and platform today!  You can find everything on our website gettingclosereveryday.com + Instagram @jennaleveille_11 + Instagram @gettingclosereveryday_  + Linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/in/jennaleveille/

Por Celso Dircksen No dia 18 de março de 2023, no XV Encontro Paranaense da Ordem da Cavalaria (XV EPOC), membros e participantes da Ordem DeMolay e da família maçônica reuniram-se na cidade de Curitiba, nas dependências da sede da Grande Loja do Paraná, para a inauguração da sede do Grande Conselho do Paraná da Ordem DeMolay, que passa então a atuar com sede física. O evento de inauguração ocorreu concomitante ao XV EPOC, evento estadual de cavaleiros da Ordem DeMolay, que congregou inúmeros participantes e autoridades maçônicas que se fizeram presentes na inauguração como: Sereníssimo Grão Mestre da Grande Loja Maçônica do Paraná, Marco Antônio Corrêa de Sá, Grande Mestre Estadual Yuki Lopes Tamura, Grande Secretário Nacional Diego José, Membro do DeMolay International Evanir Pereira, Eminente Deputado do Grão Mestre José de Faria, Grão Mestre de Honra da Grande Loja do Paraná Iraci Borges, Assessor das Entidades Paramaçônicas do Grande Oriente do Paraná Clóvis de Abreu e representando o Grande Oriente do Brasil – Paraná o maçom Diego Astori, também Grande Mestre Estadual Adjunto. Na recém inaugurada sede do GCE consta o gabinete do Grande Conselho, uma galeria de lideranças com todos os Past Grande Mestres e Past Mestre Conselheiros Estaduais, bem como seus adjuntos, da Ordem DeMolay Paranaense. Consta também a placa de agradecimento ao apoio maçônico incessante que possibilitou a existência do local. Além disso, itens que agora fazem parte do acervo da sede do GCE-PR foram trazidos de diversas partes do Estado do Paraná. Estão expostas peças como a primeira capa de oficial utilizada por um DeMolay no estado e diversas premiações que as lideranças foram presenteadas e agora fazem parte da história da Ordem DeMolay no amado estado do Paraná. A sede física agora será utilizada para realizar despachos do Grande Conselho Estadual, servirá também como espaço de secretaria e administração dos trabalhos da Ordem DeMolay e ficará aberta para visitação aos itens do museu em anexo ao gabinete. O Grande Conselho Estadual do Estado do Paraná, bem como toda a ordem DeMolay paranaense, reitera o incessante e incondicional apoio e sustento que as três potências maçônicas regulares do Paraná sempre têm oferecido e disponibilizado às lideranças e DeMolays e se coloca à disposição para a ordem maçônica como um todo na busca do aperfeiçoamento do jovens e da criação e aprimoramento de homens livres e de bons costumes para a sociedade. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/malhete-podcast/message

About AndiAndi Gutmans is the General Manager and Vice President for Databases at Google. Andi's focus is on building, managing and scaling the most innovative database services to deliver the industry's leading data platform for businesses. Before joining Google, Andi was VP Analytics at AWS running services such as Amazon Redshift. Before his tenure at AWS, Andi served as CEO and co-founder of Zend Technologies, the commercial backer of open-source PHP.Andi has over 20 years of experience as an open source contributor and leader. He co-authored open source PHP. He is an emeritus member of the Apache Software Foundation and served on the Eclipse Foundation's board of directors. He holds a bachelor's degree in Computer Science from the Technion, Israel Institute of Technology.Links Referenced: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/andigutmans/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/andigutmans TranscriptAnnouncer: Hello, and welcome to Screaming in the Cloud with your host, Chief Cloud Economist at The Duckbill Group, Corey Quinn. This weekly show features conversations with people doing interesting work in the world of cloud, thoughtful commentary on the state of the technical world, and ridiculous titles for which Corey refuses to apologize. This is Screaming in the Cloud.Corey: This episode is sponsored in part by our friends at Sysdig. Sysdig secures your cloud from source to run. They believe, as do I, that DevOps and security are inextricably linked. If you wanna learn more about how they view this, check out their blog, it's definitely worth the read. To learn more about how they are absolutely getting it right from where I sit, visit Sysdig.com and tell them that I sent you. That's S Y S D I G.com. And my thanks to them for their continued support of this ridiculous nonsense.Corey: Welcome to Screaming in the Cloud. I'm Corey Quinn. This promoted episode is brought to us by our friends at Google Cloud, and in so doing, they have gotten a guest to appear on this show that I have been low-key trying to get here for a number of years. Andi Gutmans is VP and GM of Databases at Google Cloud. Andi, thank you for joining me.Andi: Corey, thanks so much for having me.Corey: I have to begin with the obvious. Given that one of my personal passion projects is misusing every cloud service I possibly can as a database, where do you start and where do you stop as far as saying, “Yes, that's a database,” so it rolls up to me and, “No, that's not a database, so someone else can deal with the nonsense?”Andi: I'm in charge of the operational databases, so that includes both the managed third-party databases such as MySQL, Postgres, SQL Server, and then also the cloud-first databases, such as Spanner, Big Table, Firestore, and AlloyDB. So, I suggest that's where you start because those are all awesome services. And then what doesn't fall underneath, kind of, that purview are things like BigQuery, which is an analytics, you know, data warehouse, and other analytics engines. And of course, there's always folks who bring in their favorite, maybe, lesser-known or less popular database and self-manage it on GCE, on Compute.Corey: Before you wound up at Google Cloud, you spent roughly four years at AWS as VP of Analytics, which is, again, one of those very hazy type of things. Where does it start? Where does it stop? It's not at all clear from the outside. But even before that, you were, I guess, something of a legendary figure, which I know is always a weird thing for people to hear.But you were partially at least responsible for the Zend Framework in the PHP world, which I didn't realize what the heck that was, despite supporting it in production at a couple of jobs, until after I, for better or worse, was no longer trusted to support production environments anymore. Which, honestly, if you can get out, I'm a big proponent of doing that. You sleep so much better without a pager. How did you go from programming languages all the way on over to databases? It just seems like a very odd mix.Andi: Yeah. No, that's a great question. So, I was one of the core developers of PHP, and you know, I had been in the PHP community for quite some time. I also helped ideate. The Zend Framework, which was the company that, you know, I co-founded Zend Technologies was kind of the company behind PHP.So, like Red Hat supports Linux commercially, we supported PHP. And I was very much focused on developers, programming languages, frameworks, IDEs, and that was, you know, really exciting. I had also done quite a bit of work on interoperability with databases, right, because behind every application, there's a database, and so a lot of what we focused on is a great connectivity to MySQL, to Postgres, to other databases, and I got to kind of learn the database world from the outside from the application builders. We sold our company in I think it was 2015 and so I had to kind of figure out what's next. And so, one option would have been, hey, stay in programming languages, but what I learned over the many years that I worked with application developers is that there's a huge amount of value in data.And frankly, I'm a very curious person; I always like to learn, so there was this opportunity to join Amazon, to join the non-relational database side, and take myself completely out of my comfort zone. And actually, I joined AWS to help build the graph database Amazon Neptune, which was even more out of my comfort zone than even probably a relational database. So, I kind of like to do different things and so I joined and I had to learn, you know how to build a database pretty much from the ground up. I mean, of course, I didn't do the coding, but I had to learn enough to be dangerous, and so I worked on a bunch of non-relational databases there such as, you know, Neptune, Redis, Elasticsearch, DynamoDB Accelerator. And then there was the opportunity for me to actually move over from non-relational databases to analytics, which was another way to get myself out of my comfort zone.And so, I moved to run the analytic space, which included services like Redshift, like EMR, Athena, you name it. So, that was just a great experience for me where I got to work with a lot of awesome people and learn a lot. And then the opportunity arose to join Google and actually run the Google transactional databases including their older relational databases. And by the way, my job actually have two jobs. One job is running Spanner and Big Table for Google itself—meaning, you know, search ads and YouTube and everything runs on these databases—and then the second job is actually running external-facing databases for external customers.Corey: How alike are those two? Is it effectively the exact same thing, just with different API endpoints? Are they two completely separate universes? It's always unclear from the outside when looking at large companies that effectively eat versions of their own dog food, where their internal usage of these things starts and stops.Andi: So, great question. So, Cloud Spanner and Cloud Big Table do actually use the internal Spanner and Big Table. So, at the core, it's exactly the same engine, the same runtime, same storage, and everything. However, you know, kind of, internally, the way we built the database APIs was kind of good for scrappy, you know, Google engineers, and you know, folks are kind of are okay, learning how to fit into the Google ecosystem, but when we needed to make this work for enterprise customers, we needed a cleaner APIs, we needed authentication that was an external, right, and so on, so forth. So, think about we had to add an additional set of APIs on top of it, and management, right, to really make these engines accessible to the external world.So, it's running the same engine under the hood, but it is a different set of APIs, and a big part of our focus is continuing to expose to enterprise customers all the goodness that we have on the internal system. So, it's really about taking these very, very unique differentiated databases and democratizing access to them to anyone who wants to.Corey: I'm curious to get your position on the idea that seems to be playing it's—I guess, a battle that's been playing itself out in a number of different customer conversations. And that is, I guess, the theoretical decision between, do we go towards general-purpose databases and more or less treat every problem as a nail in search of a hammer or do you decide that every workload gets its own custom database that aligns the best with that particular workload? There are trade-offs in either direction, but I'm curious where you land on that given that you tend to see a lot more of it than I do.Andi: No, that's a great question. And you know, just for the viewers who maybe aren't aware, there's kind of two extreme points of view, right? There's one point of view that says, purpose-built for everything, like, every specific pattern, like, build bespoke databases, it's kind of a best-of-breed approach. The problem with that approach is it becomes extremely complex for customers, right? Extremely complex to decide what to use, they might need to use multiple for the same application, and so that can be a bit daunting as a customer. And frankly, there's kind of a law of diminishing returns at some point.Corey: Absolutely. I don't know what the DBA role of the future is, but I don't think anyone really wants it to be, “Oh, yeah. We're deciding which one of these three dozen manage database services is the exact right fit for each and every individual workload.” I mean, at some point it feels like certain cloud providers believe that not only every workload should have its own database, but almost every workload should have its own database service. It's at some point, you're allowed to say no and stop building these completely, what feel like to me, Byzantine, esoteric database engines that don't seem to have broad applicability to a whole lot of problems.Andi: Exactly, exactly. And maybe the other extreme is what folks often talk about as multi-model where you say, like, “Hey, I'm going to have a single storage engine and then map onto that the relational model, the document model, the graph model, and so on.” I think what we tend to see is if you go too generic, you also start having performance issues, you may not be getting the right level of abilities and trade-offs around consistency, and replication, and so on. So, I would say Google, like, we're taking a very pragmatic approach where we're saying, “You know what? We're not going to solve all of customer problems with a single database, but we're also not going to have two dozen.” Right?So, we're basically saying, “Hey, let's understand that the main characteristics of the workloads that our customers need to address, build the best services around those.” You know, obviously, over time, we continue to enhance what we have to fit additional models. And then frankly, we have a really awesome partner ecosystem on Google Cloud where if someone really wants a very specialized database, you know, we also have great partners that they can use on Google Cloud and get great support and, you know, get the rest of the benefits of the platform.Corey: I'm very curious to get your take on a pattern that I've seen alluded to by basically every vendor out there except the couple of very obvious ones for whom it does not serve their particular vested interests, which is that there's a recurring narrative that customers are demanding open-source databases for their workloads. And when you hear that, at least, people who came up the way that I did, spending entirely too much time on Freenode, back when that was not a deeply problematic statement in and of itself, where, yes, we're open-source, I guess, zealots is probably the best terminology, and yeah, businesses are demanding to participate in the open-source ecosystem. Here in reality, what I see is not ideological purity or anything like that and much more to do with, “Yeah, we don't like having a single commercial vendor for our databases that basically plays the insert quarter to continue dance whenever we're trying to wind up doing something new. We want the ability to not have licensing constraints around when, where, how, and how quickly we can run databases.” That's what I hear when customers are actually talking about open-source versus proprietary databases. Is that what you see or do you think that plays out differently? Because let's be clear, you do have a number of database services that you offer that are not open-source, but are also absolutely not tied to weird licensing restrictions either?Andi: That's a great question, and I think for years now, customers have been in a difficult spot because the legacy proprietary database vendors, you know, knew how sticky the database is, and so as a result, you know, the prices often went up and was not easy for customers to kind of manage costs and agility and so on. But I would say that's always been somewhat of a concern. I think what I'm seeing changing and happening differently now is as customers are moving into the cloud and they want to run hybrid cloud, they want to run multi-cloud, they need to prove to their regulator that it can do a stressed exit, right, open-source is not just about reducing cost, it's really about flexibility and kind of being in control of when and where you can run the workloads. So, I think what we're really seeing now is a significant surge of customers who are trying to get off legacy proprietary database and really kind of move to open APIs, right, because they need that freedom. And that freedom is far more important to them than even the cost element.And what's really interesting is, you know, a lot of these are the decision-makers in these enterprises, not just the technical folks. Like, to your point, it's not just open-source advocates, right? It's really the business people who understand they need the flexibility. And by the way, even the regulators are asking them to show that they can flexibly move their workloads as they need to. So, we're seeing a huge interest there and, as you said, like, some of our services, you know, are open-source-based services, some of them are not.Like, take Spanner, as an example, it is heavily tied to how we build our infrastructure and how we build our systems. Like, I would say, it's almost impossible to open-source Spanner, but what we've done is we've basically embraced open APIs and made sure if a customer uses these systems, we're giving them control of when and where they want to run their workloads. So, for example, Big Table has an HBase API; Spanner now has a Postgres interface. So, our goal is really to give customers as much flexibility and also not lock them into Google Cloud. Like, we want them to be able to move out of Google Cloud so they have control of their destiny.Corey: I'm curious to know what you see happening in the real world because I can sit here and come up with a bunch of very well-thought-out logical reasons to go towards or away from certain patterns, but I spent years building things myself. I know how it works, you grab the closest thing handy and throw it in and we all know that there is nothing so permanent as a temporary fix. Like, that thing is load-bearing and you'll retire with that thing still in place. In the idealized world, I don't think that I would want to take a dependency on something like—easy example—Spanner or AlloyDB because despite the fact that they have Postgres-squeal—yes, that's how I pronounce it—compatibility, the capabilities of what they're able to do under the hood far exceed and outstrip whatever you're going to be able to build yourself or get anywhere else. So, there's a dataflow architectural dependency lock-in, despite the fact that it is at least on its face, Postgres compatible. Counterpoint, does that actually matter to customers in what you are seeing?Andi: I think it's a great question. I'll give you a couple of data points. I mean, first of all, even if you take a complete open-source product, right, running them in different clouds, different on-premises environments, and so on, fundamentally, you will have some differences in performance characteristics, availability characteristics, and so on. So, the truth is, even if you use open-source, right, you're not going to get a hundred percent of the same characteristics where you run that. But that said, you still have the freedom of movement, and with I would say and not a huge amount of engineering investment, right, you're going to make sure you can run that workload elsewhere.I kind of think of Spanner in the similar way where yes, I mean, you're going to get all those benefits of Spanner that you can't get anywhere else, like unlimited scale, global consistency, right, no maintenance downtime, five-nines availability, like, you can't really get that anywhere else. That said, not every application necessarily needs it. And you still have that option, right, that if you need to, or want to, or we're not giving you a reasonable price or reasonable price performance, but we're starting to neglect you as a customer—which of course we wouldn't, but let's just say hypothetically, that you know, that could happen—that you still had a way to basically go and run this elsewhere. Now, I'd also want to talk about some of the upsides something like Spanner gives you. Because you talked about, you want to be able to just grab a few things, build something quickly, and then, you know, you don't want to be stuck.The counterpoint to that is with Spanner, you can start really, really small, and then let's say you're a gaming studio, you know, you're building ten titles hoping that one of them is going to take off. So, you can build ten of those, you know, with very minimal spend on Spanner and if one takes off overnight, it's really only the database where you don't have to go and re-architect the application; it's going to scale as big as you need it to. And so, it does enable a lot of this innovation and a lot of cost management as you try to get to that overnight success.Corey: Yeah, overnight success. I always love that approach. It's one of those, “Yeah, I became an overnight success after only ten short years.” It becomes this idea people believe it's in fits and starts, but then you see, I guess, on some level, the other side of it where it's a lot of showing up and doing the work. I have to confess, I didn't do a whole lot of admin work in my production years that touched databases because I have an aura and I'm unlucky, and it turns out that when you blow away some web servers, everyone can laugh and we'll reprovision stateless things.Get too close to the data warehouse, for example, and you don't really have a company left anymore. And of course, in the world of finance that I came out of, transactional integrity is also very much a thing. A question that I had [centers 00:17:51] really around one of the predictions you gave recently at Google Cloud Next, which is your prediction for the future is that transactional and analytical workloads from a database perspective will converge. What's that based on?Andi: You know, I think we're really moving from a world where customers are trying to make real-time decisions, right? If there's model drift from an AI and ML perspective, want to be able to retrain their models as quickly as possible. So, everything is fast moving into streaming. And I think what you're starting to see is, you know, customers don't have that time to wait for analyzing their transactional data. Like in the past, you do a batch job, you know, once a day or once an hour, you know, move the data from your transactional system to analytical system, but that's just not how it is always-on businesses run anymore, and they want to have those real-time insights.So, I do think that what you're going to see is transactional systems more and more building analytical capabilities, analytical systems building, and more transactional, and then ultimately, cloud platform providers like us helping fill that gap and really making data movement seamless across transactional analytical, and even AI and ML workloads. And so, that's an area that I think is a big opportunity. I also think that Google is best positioned to solve that problem.Corey: Forget everything you know about SSH and try Tailscale. Imagine if you didn't need to manage PKI or rotate SSH keys every time someone leaves. That'd be pretty sweet, wouldn't it? With Tailscale SSH, you can do exactly that. Tailscale gives each server and user device a node key to connect to its VPN, and it uses the same node key to authorize and authenticate SSH.Basically you're SSHing the same way you manage access to your app. What's the benefit here? Built-in key rotation, permissions as code, connectivity between any two devices, reduce latency, and there's a lot more, but there's a time limit here. You can also ask users to reauthenticate for that extra bit of security. Sounds expensive?Nope, I wish it were. Tailscale is completely free for personal use on up to 20 devices. To learn more, visit snark.cloud/tailscale. Again, that's snark.cloud/tailscaleCorey: On some level, I've found that, at least in my own work, that once I wind up using a database for something, I'm inclined to try and stuff as many other things into that database as I possibly can just because getting a whole second data store, taking a dependency on it for any given workload tends to be a little bit on the, I guess, challenging side. Easy example of this. I've talked about it previously in various places, but I was talking to one of your colleagues, [Sarah Ellis 00:19:48], who wound up at one point making a joke that I, of course, took way too far. Long story short, I built a Twitter bot on top of Google Cloud Functions that every time the Azure brand account tweets, it simply quote-tweets that translates their tweet into all caps, and then puts a boomer-style statement in front of it if there's room. This account is @cloudboomer.Now, the hard part that I had while doing this is everything stateless works super well. Where do I wind up storing the ID of the last tweet that it saw on his previous run? And I was fourth and inches from just saying, “Well, I'm already using Twitter so why don't we use Twitter as a database?” Because everything's a database if you're either good enough or bad enough at programming. And instead, I decided, okay, we'll try this Firebase thing first.And I don't know if it's Firestore, or Datastore or whatever it's called these days, but once I wrap my head around it incredibly effective, very fast to get up and running, and I feel like I made at least a good decision, for once in my life, involving something touching databases. But it's hard. I feel like I'm consistently drawn toward the thing I'm already using as a default database. I can't shake the feeling that that's the wrong direction.Andi: I don't think it's necessarily wrong. I mean, I think, you know, with Firebase and Firestore, that combination is just extremely easy and quick to build awesome mobile applications. And actually, you can build mobile applications without a middle tier which is probably what attracted you to that. So, we just see, you know, huge amount of developers and applications. We have over 4 million databases in Firestore with just developers building these applications, especially mobile-first applications. So, I think, you know, if you can get your job done and get it done effectively, absolutely stick to them.And by the way, one thing a lot of people don't know about Firestore is it's actually running on Spanner infrastructure, so Firestore has the same five-nines availability, no maintenance downtime, and so on, that has Spanner, and the same kind of ability to scale. So, it's not just that it's quick, it will actually scale as much as you need it to and be as available as you need it to. So, that's on that piece. I think, though, to the same point, you know, there's other databases that we're then trying to make sure kind of also extend their usage beyond what they've traditionally done. So, you know, for example, we announced AlloyDB, which I kind of call it Postgres on steroids, we added analytical capabilities to this transactional database so that as customers do have more data in their transactional database, as opposed to having to go somewhere else to analyze it, they can actually do real-time analytics within that same database and it can actually do up to 100 times faster analytics than open-source Postgres.So, I would say both Firestore and AlloyDB, are kind of good examples of if it works for you, right, we'll also continue to make investments so the amount of use cases you can use these databases for continues to expand over time.Corey: One of the weird things that I noticed just looking around this entire ecosystem of databases—and you've been in this space long enough to, presumably, have seen the same type of evolution—back when I was transiting between different companies a fair bit, sometimes because I was consulting and other times because I'm one of the greatest in the world at getting myself fired from jobs based upon my personality, I found that the default standard was always, “Oh, whatever the database is going to be, it started off as MySQL and then eventually pivots into something else when that starts falling down.” These days, I can't shake the feeling that almost everywhere I look, Postgres is the answer instead. What changed? What did I miss in the ecosystem that's driving that renaissance, for lack of a better term?Andi: That's a great question. And, you know, I have been involved in—I'm going to date myself a bit—but in PHP since 1997, pretty much, and one of the things we kind of did is we build a really good connector to MySQL—and you know, I don't know if you remember, before MySQL, there was MS SQL. So, the MySQL API actually came from MS SQL—and we bundled the MySQL driver with PHP. And so, kind of that LAMP stack really took off. And kind of to your point, you know, the default in the web, right, was like, you're going to start with MySQL because it was super easy to use, just fun to use.By the way, I actually wrote—co-authored—the tab completion in the MySQL client. So like, a lot of these kinds of, you know, fun, simple ways of using MySQL were there, and frankly, was super fast, right? And so, kind of those fast reads and everything, it just was great for web and for content. And at the time, Postgres kind of came across more like a science project. Like the folks who were using Postgres were kind of the outliers, right, you know, the less pragmatic folks.I think, what's changed over the past, how many years has it been now, 25 years—I'm definitely dating myself—is a few things: one, MySQL is still awesome, but it didn't kind of go in the direction of really, kind of, trying to catch up with the legacy proprietary databases on features and functions. Part of that may just be that from a roadmap perspective, that's not where the owner wanted it to go. So, MySQL today is still great, but it didn't go into that direction. In parallel, right, customers wanting to move more to open-source. And so, what they found this, the thing that actually looks and smells more like legacy proprietary databases is actually Postgres, plus you saw an increase of investment in the Postgres ecosystem, also very liberal license.So, you have lots of other databases including commercial ones that have been built off the Postgres core. And so, I think you are today in a place where, for mainstream enterprise, Postgres is it because that is the thing that has all the features that the enterprise customer is used to. MySQL is still very popular, especially in, like, content and web, and mobile applications, but I would say that Postgres has really become kind of that de facto standard API that's replacing the legacy proprietary databases.Corey: I've been on the record way too much as saying, with some justification, that the best database in the world that should be used for everything is Route 53, specifically, TXT records. It's a key-value store and then anyone who's deep enough into DNS or databases generally gets a slightly greenish tinge and feels ill. That is my simultaneous best and worst database. I'm curious as to what your most controversial opinion is about the worst database in the world that you've ever seen.Andi: This is the worst database? Or—Corey: Yeah. What is the worst database that you've ever seen? I know, at some level, since you manage all things database, I'm asking you to pick your least favorite child, but here we are.Andi: Oh, that's a really good question. No, I would say probably the, “Worst database,” double-quotes is just the file system, right? When folks are basically using the file system as regular database. And that can work for, you know, really simple apps, but as apps get more complicated, that's not going to work. So, I've definitely seen some of that.I would say the most awesome database that is also file system-based kind of embedded, I think was actually SQLite, you know? And SQLite is actually still very, very popular. I think it sits on every mobile device pretty much on the planet. So, I actually think it's awesome, but it's, you know, it's on a database server. It's kind of an embedded database, but it's something that I, you know, I've always been pretty excited about. And, you know, their stuff [unintelligible 00:27:43] kind of new, interesting databases emerging that are also embedded, like DuckDB is quite interesting. You know, it's kind of the SQLite for analytics.Corey: We've been using it for a few things around a bill analysis ourselves. It's impressive. I've also got to say, people think that we had something to do with it because we're The Duckbill Group, and it's DuckDB. “Have you done anything with this?” And the answer is always, “Would you trust me with a database? I didn't think so.” So no, it's just a weird coincidence. But I liked that a lot.It's also counterintuitive from where I sit because I'm old enough to remember when Microsoft was teasing the idea of WinFS where they teased a future file system that fundamentally was a database—I believe it's an index or journal for all of that—and I don't believe anything ever came of it. But ugh, that felt like a really weird alternate world we could have lived in.Andi: Yeah. Well, that's a good point. And by the way, you know, if I actually take a step back, right, and I kind of half-jokingly said, you know, file system and obviously, you know, all the popular databases persist on the file system. But if you look at what's different in cloud-first databases, right, like, if you look at legacy proprietary databases, the typical setup is wright to the local disk and then do asynchronous replication with some kind of bounded replication lag to somewhere else, to a different region, or so on. If you actually start to look at what the cloud-first databases look like, they actually write the data in multiple data centers at the same time.And so, kind of joke aside, as you start to think about, “Hey, how do I build the next generation of applications and how do I really make sure I get the resiliency and the durability that the cloud can offer,” it really does take a new architecture. And so, that's where things like, you know, Spanner and Big Table, and kind of, AlloyDB databases are truly architected for the cloud. That's where they actually think very differently about durability and replication, and what it really takes to provide the highest level of availability and durability.Corey: On some level, I think one of the key things for me to realize was that in my own experiments, whenever I wind up doing something that is either for fun or I just want see how it works in what's possible, the scale of what I'm building is always inherently a toy problem. It's like the old line that if it fits in RAM, you don't have a big data problem. And then I'm looking at things these days that are having most of a petabyte's worth of RAM sometimes it's okay, that definition continues to extend and get ridiculous. But I still find that most of what I do in a database context can be done with almost any database. There's no reason for me not to, for example, uses a SQLite file or to use an object store—just there's a little latency, but whatever—or even a text file on disk.The challenge I find is that as you start scaling and growing these things, you start to run into limitations left and right, and only then it's one of those, oh, I should have made different choices or I should have built-in abstractions. But so many of these things comes to nothing; it just feels like extra work. What guidance do you have for people who are trying to figure out how much effort to put in upfront when they're just more or less puttering around to see what comes out of it?Andi: You know, we like to think about ourselves at Google Cloud as really having a unique value proposition that really helps you future-proof your development. You know, if I look at both Spanner and I look at BigQuery, you can actually start with a very, very low cost. And frankly, not every application has to scale. So, you can start at low cost, you can have a small application, but everyone wants two things: one is availability because you don't want your application to be down, and number two is if you have to scale you want to be able to without having to rewrite your application. And so, I think this is where we have a very unique value proposition, both in how we built Spanner and then also how we build BigQuery is that you can actually start small, and for example, on Spanner, you can go from one-tenth of what we call an instance, like, a small instance, that is, you know, under $65 a month, you can go to a petabyte scale OLTP environment with thousands of instances in Spanner, with zero downtime.And so, I think that is really the unique value proposition. We're basically saying you can hold the stick at both ends: you can basically start small and then if that application doesn't need to scale, does need to grow, you're not reengineering your application and you're not taking any downtime for reprovisioning. So, I think that's—if I had to give folks, kind of, advice, I say, “Look, what's done is done. You have workloads on MySQL, Postgres, and so on. That's great.”Like, they're awesome databases, keep on using them. But if you're truly building a new app, and you're hoping that app is going to be successful at some point, whether it's, like you said, all overnight successes take at least ten years, at least you built in on something like Spanner, you don't actually have to think about that anymore or worry about it, right? It will scale when you need it to scale and you're not going to have to take any downtime for it to scale. So, that's how we see a lot of these industries that have these potential spikes, like gaming, retail, also some use cases in financial services, they basically gravitate towards these databases.Corey: I really want to thank you for taking so much time out of your day to talk with me about databases and your perspective on them, especially given my profound level of ignorance around so many of them. If people want to learn more about how you view these things, where's the best place to find you?Andi: Follow me on LinkedIn. I tend to post quite a bit on LinkedIn, I still post a bit on Twitter, but frankly, I've moved more of my activity to LinkedIn now. I find it's—Corey: That is such a good decision. I envy you.Andi: It's a more curated [laugh], you know, audience and so on. And then also, you know, we just had Google Cloud Next. I recorded a session there that kind of talks about database and just some of the things that are new in database-land at Google Cloud. So, that's another thing that if folks more interested to get more information, that may be something that could be appealing to you.Corey: We will, of course, put links to all of this in the [show notes 00:34:03]. Thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it.Andi: Great. Corey, thanks so much for having me.Corey: Andi Gutmans, VP and GM of Databases at Google Cloud. I'm Cloud Economist Corey Quinn and this is Screaming in the Cloud. If you've enjoyed this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice, whereas if you've hated this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice along with an angry, insulting comment, then I'm going to collect all of those angry, insulting comments and use them as a database.Corey: If your AWS bill keeps rising and your blood pressure is doing the same, then you need The Duckbill Group. We help companies fix their AWS bill by making it smaller and less horrifying. The Duckbill Group works for you, not AWS. We tailor recommendations to your business and we get to the point. Visit duckbillgroup.com to get started.Announcer: This has been a HumblePod production. Stay humble.

Mind the gap: The discrepancy between simulation and reality drives interpretations of the Galactic Center Excess by Sascha Caron et al. on Monday 21 November The origin of the so-called Galactic Center Excess in GeV gamma rays has been debated for more than 10 years. What makes this excess so interesting is the possibility of interpreting it as additional radiation consistent with that expected from dark matter annihilation. Alternatively, the excess could come from undetected point sources. In this work, we examine the following questions: Since the majority of the previously reported interpretations of this excess are highly dependent on the simulation, how does the model used for the simulation affect the interpretations? Are such uncertainties taken into account? When different models lead to different conclusions, there may be a general gap between these simulations and reality that influences our conclusions. To investigate these questions, we build an ultra-fast and powerful inference pipeline based on convolutional deep ensemble networks and test the interpretations with a wide range of different models to simulate the excess. We find that our conclusions (dark matter or not) strongly depend on the type of simulation and that this is not revealed by systematic uncertainties. Furthermore, we measure whether reality lies in the simulation parameter space and conclude that there is a gap to reality in all simulated models. Our approach offers a means to assess the severity of the reality gap in future works. Our work questions the validity of conclusions (dark matter) drawn about the GCE in other works: Has the reality gap been closed and at the same time is the model correct? arXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/http://arxiv.org/abs/2211.09796v1

About ChenChen Goldberg is GM and Vice President of Engineering at Google Cloud, where she leads the Cloud Runtimes (CR) product area, helping customers deliver greater value, effortlessly. The CR  portfolio includes both Serverless and Kubernetes based platforms on Google Cloud, private cloud and other public clouds. Chen is a strong advocate for customer empathy, building products and solutions that matter. Chen has been core to Google Cloud's open core vision since she joined the company six years ago. During that time, she has led her team to focus on helping development teams increase their agility and modernize workloads. Prior to joining Google, Chen wore different hats in the tech industry including leadership positions in IT organizations, SI teams and SW product development, contributing to Chen's broad enterprise perspective. She enjoys mentoring IT talent both in and outside of Google. Chen lives in Mountain View, California, with her husband and three kids. Outside of work she enjoys hiking and baking.Links Referenced: Twitter: https://twitter.com/GoldbergChen LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/goldbergchen/ TranscriptAnnouncer: Hello, and welcome to Screaming in the Cloud with your host, Chief Cloud Economist at The Duckbill Group, Corey Quinn. This weekly show features conversations with people doing interesting work in the world of cloud, thoughtful commentary on the state of the technical world, and ridiculous titles for which Corey refuses to apologize. This is Screaming in the Cloud.Corey: Forget everything you know about SSH and try Tailscale. Imagine if you didn't need to manage PKI or rotate SSH keys every time someone leaves. That'd be pretty sweet, wouldn't it? With Tailscale SSH, you can do exactly that. Tailscale gives each server and user device a node key to connect to its VPN, and it uses the same node key to authorize and authenticate SSH.Basically you're SSHing the same way you manage access to your app. What's the benefit here? Built-in key rotation, permissions as code, connectivity between any two devices, reduce latency, and there's a lot more, but there's a time limit here. You can also ask users to reauthenticate for that extra bit of security. Sounds expensive?Nope, I wish it were. Tailscale is completely free for personal use on up to 20 devices. To learn more, visit snark.cloud/tailscale. Again, that's snark.cloud/tailscaleCorey: Welcome to Screaming in the Cloud, I'm Corey Quinn. When I get bored and the power goes out, I find myself staring at the ceiling, figuring out how best to pick fights with people on the internet about Kubernetes. Because, well, I'm basically sad and have a growing collection of personality issues. My guest today is probably one of the best people to have those arguments with. Chen Goldberg is the General Manager of Cloud Runtimes and VP of Engineering at Google Cloud. Chen, Thank you for joining me today.Chen: Thank you so much, Corey, for having me.Corey: So, Google has been doing a lot of very interesting things in the cloud, and the more astute listener will realize that interesting is not always necessarily a compliment. But from where I sit, I am deeply vested in the idea of a future where we do not have a cloud monoculture. As I've often said, I want, “What cloud should I build something on in five to ten years?” To be a hard question to answer, and not just because everything is terrible. I think that Google Cloud is absolutely a bright light in the cloud ecosystem and has been for a while, particularly with this emphasis around developer experience. All of that said, Google Cloud is sort of a big, unknowable place, at least from the outside. What is your area of responsibility? Where do you start? Where do you stop? In other words, what can I blame you for?Chen: Oh, you can blame me for a lot of things if you want to. I [laugh] might not agree with that, but that's—Corey: We strive for accuracy in these things, though.Chen: But that's fine. Well, first of all, I've joined Google about seven years ago to lead the Kubernetes and GKE team, and ever since, continued at the same area. So evolved, of course, Kubernetes, and Google Kubernetes Engine, and leading our hybrid and multi-cloud strategy as well with technologies like Anthos. And now I'm responsible for the entire container runtime, which includes Kubernetes and the serverless solutions.Corey: A while back, I, in fairly typical sarcastic form, wound up doing a whole inadvertent start of a meme where I joked about there being 17 ways to run containers on AWS. And then as that caught on, I wound up listing out 17 services you could use to do that. A few months went past and then I published a sequel of 17 more services you can use to run Kubernetes. And while that was admittedly tongue-in-cheek, it does lead to an interesting question that's ecosystem-wide. If I look at Google Cloud, I have Cloud Run, I have GKE, I have GCE if I want to do some work myself.It feels like more and more services are supporting Docker in a variety of different ways. How should customers and/or people like me—though, I am sort of a customer as well since I do pay you folks every month—how should we think about containers and services in which to run them?Chen: First of all, I think there's a lot of credit that needs to go to Docker that made containers approachable. And so, Google has been running containers forever. Everything within Google is running on containers, even our VMs, even our cloud is running on containers, but what Docker did was creating a packaging mechanism to improve developer velocity. So, that's on its own, it's great. And one of the things, by the way, that I love about Google Cloud approach to containers and Docker that yes, you can take your Docker container and run it anywhere.And it's actually really important to ensure what we call interoperability, or low barrier to entry to a new technology. So, I can take my Docker container, I can move it from one platform to another, and so on. So, that's just to start with on a containers. Between the different solutions, so first of all, I'm all about managed services. You are right, there are many ways to run a Kubernetes. I'm taking a lot of pride—Corey: The best way is always to have someone else run it for you. Problem solved. Great, the best kind of problems are always someone else's.Chen: Yes. And I'm taking a lot of pride of what our team is doing with Kubernetes. I mean, we've been working on that for so long. And it's something that you know, we've coined that term, I think back in 2016, so there is a success disaster, but there's also what we call sustainable success. So, thinking about how to set ourselves up for success and scale. Very proud of that service.Saying that, not everybody and not all your workloads you need the flexibility that Kubernetes gives you in all the ecosystem. So, if you start with containers your first time, you should start with Cloud Run. It's the easiest way to run your containers. That's one. If you are already in love with Kubernetes, we won't take it away from you. Start with GKE. Okay [laugh]? Go all-in. Okay, we are all in loving Kubernetes as well. But what my team and I are working on is to make sure that those will work really well together. And we actually see a lot of customers do that.Corey: I'd like to go back a little bit in history to the rise of Docker. I agree with you it was transformative, but containers had been around in various forms—depending upon how you want to define it—dating back to the '70s with logical partitions on mainframes. Well, is that a container? Is it not? Well, sort of. We'll assume yes for the sake of argument.The revelation that I found from Docker was the developer experience, start to finish. Suddenly, it was a couple commands and you were just working, where previously it had taken tremendous amounts of time and energy to get containers working in that same context. And I don't even know today whether or not the right way to contextualize containers is as sort of a lite version of a VM, as a packaging format, as a number of other things that you could reasonably call it. How do you think about containers?Chen: So, I'm going to do, first of all, a small [unintelligible 00:06:31]. I actually started my career as a system mainframe engineer—Corey: Hmm.Chen: And I will share that when you know, I've learned Kubernetes, I'm like, “Huh, we already have done all of that, in orchestration, in workload management on mainframe,” just to the side. The way I think about containers is as a—two things: one, it is a packaging of an application, but the other thing which is also critical is the decoupling between your application and the OS. So, having that kind of abstraction and allowing you to portable and move it between environments. So, those are the two things that are when I think about containers. And what technologies like Kubernetes and serverless gives on top of that is that manageability and making sure that we take care of everything else that is needed for you to run your application.Corey: I've been, how do I put this, getting some grief over the past few years, in the best ways possible, around a almost off-the-cuff prediction that I made, which was that in five years, which is now a lot closer to two, basically, nobody is going to care about Kubernetes. And I could have phrased that slightly more directly because people think I was trying to say, “Oh, Kubernetes is just hype. It's going to go away. Nobody's going to worry about it anymore.” And I think that is a wildly inaccurate prediction.My argument is that people are not going to have to think about it in the same way that they are today. Today, if I go out and want to go back to my days of running production services in anger—and by ‘anger,' I of course mean in production—then it would be difficult for me to find a role that did not at least touch upon Kubernetes. But people who can work with that technology effectively are in high demand and they tend to be expensive, not to mention then thinking about all of the intricacies and complexities that Kubernetes brings to the foreground, that is what doesn't feel sustainable to me. The idea that it's going to have to collapse down into something else is, by necessity, going to have to emerge. How are you seeing that play out? And also, feel free to disagree with the prediction. I am thrilled to wind up being told that I'm wrong it's how I learn the most.Chen: I don't know if I agree with the time horizon of when that will happen, but I will actually think it's a failure on us if that won't be the truth, that the majority of people will not need to know about Kubernetes and its internals. And you know, we keep saying that, like, hey, we need to make it more, like, boring, and easy, and I've just said like, “Hey, you should use managed.” And we have lots of customers that says that they're just using GKE and it scales on their behalf and they don't need to do anything for that and it's just like magic. But from a technology perspective, there is still a way to go until we can make that disappear.And there will be two things that will push us into that direction. One is—you mentioned that is as well—the talent shortage is real. All the customers that I speak with, even if they can find those great people that are experts, they're actually more interesting things for them to work on, okay? You don't need to take, like, all the people in your organization and put them on building the infrastructure. You don't care about that. You want to build innovation and promote your business.So, that's one. The second thing is that I do expect that the technology will continue to evolve and are managed solutions will be better and better. So hopefully, with these two things happening together, people will not care that what's under the hood is Kubernetes. Or maybe not even, right? I don't know exactly how things will evolve.Corey: From where I sit, what are the early criticisms I had about Docker, which I guess translates pretty well to Kubernetes, are that they solve a few extraordinarily painful problems. In the case of Docker, it was, “Well, it works on my machine,” as a grumpy sysadmin, the way I used to be, the only real response we had to that was, “Well. Time to backup your email, Skippy, because your laptop is going into production, then.” Now, you can effectively have a high-fidelity copy of production, basically anywhere, and we've solved the problem of making your Mac laptop look like a Linux server. Great, okay, awesome.With Kubernetes, it also feels, on some level, like it solves for very large-scale Google-type of problems where you want to run things across at least a certain point of scale. It feels like even today, it suffers from having an easy Hello World-style application to deploy on top of it. Using it for WordPress, or some other form of blogging software, for example, is stupendous overkill as far as the Hello World story tends to go. Increasingly as a result, it feels like it's great for the large-scale enterprise-y applications, but the getting started story of how do I have a service I could reasonably run in production? How do I contextualize that, in the world of Kubernetes? How do you respond to that type of perspective?Chen: We'll start with maybe a short story. I started my career in the Israeli army. I was head of the department and one of the lead technology units and I was responsible for building a PAS. In essence, it was 20-plus years ago, so we didn't really call it a PAS but that's what it was. And then at some point, it was amazing, developers were very productive, we got innovation again, again. And then there was some new innovation just at the beginning of web [laugh] at some point.And it was actually—so two things I've noticed back then. One, it was really hard to evolve the platform to allow new technologies and innovation, and second thing, from a developer perspective, it was like a black box. So, the developers team that people were—the other development teams couldn't really troubleshoot environment; they were not empowered to make decisions or [unintelligible 00:12:29] in the platform. And you know, when it was just started with Kubernetes—by the way, beginning, it only supported 100 nodes, and then 1000 nodes. Okay, it was actually not for scale; it actually solved those two problems, which I'm—this is where I spend most of my time.So, the first one, we don't want magic, okay? To be clear on, like, what's happening, I want to make sure that things are consistent and I can get the right observability. So, that's one. The second thing is that we invested so much in the extensibility an environment that it's, I wouldn't say it's easy, but it's doable to evolve Kubernetes. You can change the models, you can extend it you can—there is an ecosystem.And you know, when we were building it, I remember I used to tell my team, there won't be a Kubernetes 2.0. Which is for a developer, it's [laugh] frightening. But if you think about it and you prepare for that, you're like, “Huh. Okay, what does that mean with how I build my APIs? What does that mean of how we build a system?” So, that was one. The second thing I keep telling my team, “Please don't get too attached to your code because if it will still be there in 5, 10 years, we did something wrong.”And you can see areas within Kubernetes, again, all the extensions. I'm very proud of all the interfaces that we've built, but let's take networking. This keeps to evolve all the time on the API and the surface area that allows us to introduce new technologies. I love it. So, those are the two things that have nothing to do with scale, are unique to Kubernetes, and I think are very empowering, and are critical for the success.Corey: One thing that you said that resonates most deeply with me is the idea that you don't want there to be magic, where I just hand it to this thing and it runs it as if by magic. Because, again, we've all run things in anger in production, and what happens when the magic breaks? When you're sitting around scratching your head with no idea how it starts or how it stops, that is scary. I mean, I recently wound up re-implementing Google Cloud Distinguished Engineer Kelsey Hightower's “Kubernetes the Hard Way” because he gave a terrific tutorial that I ran through in about 45 minutes on top of Google Cloud. It's like, “All right, how do I make this harder?”And the answer is to do it on AWS, re-implement it there. And my experiment there can be found at kubernetesthemuchharderway.com because I have a vanity domain problem. And it taught me he an awful lot, but one of the challenges I had as I went through that process was, at one point, the nodes were not registering with the controller.And I ran out of time that day and turned everything off—because surprise bills are kind of what I spend my time worrying about—turn it on the next morning to continue and then it just worked. And that was sort of the spidey sense tingling moment of, “Okay, something wasn't working and now it is, and I don't understand why. But I just rebooted it and it started working.” Which is terrifying in the context of a production service. It was understandable—kind of—and I think that's the sort of thing that you understand a lot better, the more you work with it in production, but a counterargument to that is—and I've talked about it on this show before—for this podcast, I wind up having sponsors from time to time, who want to give me fairly complicated links to go check them out, so I have the snark.cloud URL redirector.That's running as a production service on top of Google Cloud Run. It took me half an hour to get that thing up and running; I haven't had to think about it since, aside from a three-second latency that was driving me nuts and turned out to be a sleep hidden in the code, which I can't really fault Google Cloud Run for so much as my crappy nonsense. But it just works. It's clearly running atop Kubernetes, but I don't have to think about it. That feels like the future. It feels like it's a glimpse of a world to come, we're just starting to dip our toes into. That, at least to me, feels like a lot more of the abstractions being collapsed into something easily understandable.Chen: [unintelligible 00:16:30], I'm happy you say that. When talking with customers and we're showing, like, you know, yes, they're all in Kubernetes and talking about Cloud Run and serverless, I feel there is that confidence level that they need to overcome. And that's why it's really important for us in Google Cloud is to make sure that you can mix and match. Because sometimes, you know, a big retail customer of ours, some of their teams, it's really important for them to use a Kubernetes-based platform because they have their workloads also running on-prem and they want to serve the same playbooks, for example, right? How do I address issues, how do I troubleshoot, and so on?So, that's one set of things. But some cloud only as simple as possible. So, can I use both of them and still have a similar developer experience, and so on? So, I do think that we'll see more of that in the coming years. And as the technology evolves, then we'll have more and more, of course, serverless solutions.By the way, it doesn't end there. Like, we see also, you know, databases and machine learning, and like, there are so many more managed services that are making things easy. And that's what excites me. I mean, that's what's awesome about what we're doing in cloud. We are building platforms that enable innovation.Corey: I think that there's an awful lot of power behind unlocking innovation from a customer perspective. The idea that I can use a cloud provider to wind up doing an experiment to build something in the course of an evening, and if it works, great, I can continue to scale up without having to replace, you know, the crappy Raspberry Pi-level hardware in my spare room with serious enterprise servers in a data center somewhere. The on-ramp and the capability and the lack of long-term commitments is absolutely magical. What I'm also seeing that is contributing to that is the de facto standard that's emerged of most things these days support Docker, for better or worse. There are many open-source tools that I see where, “Oh, how do I get this up and running?”“Well, you can go over the river and through the woods and way past grandmother's house to build this from source or run this Docker file.” I feel like that is the direction the rest of the world is going. And as much fun as it is to sit on the sidelines and snark, I'm finding a lot more capability stories emerging across the board. Does that resonate with what you're seeing, given that you are inherently working at very large scale, given the [laugh] nature of where you work?Chen: I do see that. And I actually want to double down on the open standards, which I think this is also something that is happening. At the beginning, we talked about I want it to be very hard when I choose the cloud provider. But innovation doesn't only come from cloud providers; there's a lot of companies and a lot of innovation happening that are building new technologies on top of those cloud providers, and I don't think this is going to stop. Innovation is going to come from many places, and it's going to be very exciting.And by the way, things are moving super fast in our space. So, the investment in open standard is critical for our industry. So, Docker is one example. Google is in [unintelligible 00:19:46] speaking, it's investing a lot in building those open standards. So, we have Docker, we have things like of course Kubernetes, but we are also investing in open standards of security, so we are working with other partners around [unintelligible 00:19:58], defining how you can secure the software supply chain, which is also critical for innovation. So, all of those things that reduce the barrier to entry is something that I'm personally passionate about.Corey: Scaling containers and scaling Kubernetes is hard, but a whole ‘nother level of difficulty is scaling humans. You've been at Google for, as you said, seven years and you did not start as a VP there. Getting promoted from Senior Director to VP at Google is a, shall we say, heavy lift. You also mentioned that you previously started with, I believe, it was a seven-person team at one point. How have you been able to do that? Because I can see a world in which, “Oh, we just write some code and we can scale the computers pretty easily,” I've never found a way to do that for people.Chen: So yes, I started actually—well not 7, but the team was 30 people [laugh]. And you can imagine how surprised I was when I joining Google Cloud with Kubernetes and GKE and it was a pretty small team, to the beginning of those days. But the team was already actually on the edge of burning out. You know, pings on Slack, the GitHub issues, there was so many things happening 24/7.And the thing was just doing everything. Everybody were doing everything. And one of the things I've done on my second month on the team—I did an off-site, right, all managers; that's what we do; we do off-sites—and I brought the team in to talk about—the leadership team—to talk about our team values. And in the beginning, they were a little bit pissed, I would say, “Okay, Chen. What's going on? You're wasting two days of our lives to talk about those things. Why we are not doing other things?”And I was like, “You know guys, this is really important. Let's talk about what's important for us.” It was an amazing it worked. By the way, that work is still the foundation of the culture in the team. We talked about the three values that we care about and how that will look like.And the reason it's important is that when you scale teams, the key thing is actually to scale decision-making. So, how do you scale decision-making? I think there are two things there. One is what you're trying to achieve. So, people should know and understand the vision and know where we want to get to.But the second thing is, how do we work? What's important for us? How do we prioritize? How do we make trade-offs? And when you have both the what we're trying to do and the how, you build that team culture. And when you have that, I find that you're set up more for success for scaling the team.Because then the storyteller is not just the leader or the manager. The entire team is a storyteller of how things are working in this team, how do we work, what you're trying to achieve, and so on. So, that's something that had been a critical. So, that's just, you know, from methodology of how I think it's the right thing to scale teams. Specifically, with a Kubernetes, there were more issues that we needed to work on.For example, building or [recoding 00:23:05] different functions. It cannot be just engineering doing everything. So, hiring the first product managers and information engineers and marketing people, oh my God. Yes, you have to have marketing people because there are so many events. And so, that was one thing, just you know, from people and skills.And the second thing is that it was an open-source project and a product, but what I was personally doing, I was—with the team—is bringing some product engineering practices into the open-source. So, can we say, for example, that we are going to focus on user experience this next release? And we're not going to do all the rest. And I remember, my team was like worried about, like, “Hey, what about that, and what about this, and we have—” you know, they were juggling everything together. And I remember telling them, “Imagine that everything is on the floor. All the balls are on the floor. I know they're on the floor, you know they're on the floor. It's okay. Let's just make sure that every time we pick something up, it never falls again.” And that idea is a principle that then evolved to ‘No Heroics,' and it evolved to ‘Sustainable Success.' But building things towards sustainable success is a principle which has been very helpful for us.Corey: This episode is sponsored in part by our friend at Uptycs. Attackers don't think in silos, so why would you have siloed solutions protecting cloud, containers, and laptops distinctly? Meet Uptycs - the first unified solution that prioritizes risk across your modern attack surface—all from a single platform, UI, and data model. Stop by booth 3352 at AWS re:Invent in Las Vegas to see for yourself and visit uptycs.com. That's U-P-T-Y-C-S.com. My thanks to them for sponsoring my ridiculous nonsense.Corey: When I take a look back, it's very odd to me to see the current reality that is Google, where you're talking about empathy, and the No Heroics, and the rest of that is not the reputation that Google enjoyed back when a lot of this stuff got started. It was always oh, engineers should be extraordinarily bright and gifted, and therefore it felt at the time like our customers should be as well. There was almost an arrogance built into, well, if you wrote your code more like Google will, then maybe your code wouldn't be so terrible in the cloud. And somewhat cynically I thought for a while that oh Kubernetes is Google's attempt to wind up making the rest of the world write software in a way that's more Google-y. I don't think that observation has aged very well. I think it's solved a tremendous number of problems for folks.But the complexity has absolutely been high throughout most of Kubernetes life. I would argue, on some level, that it feels like it's become successful almost in spite of that, rather than because of it. But I'm curious to get your take. Why do you believe that Kubernetes has been as successful as it clearly has?Chen: [unintelligible 00:25:34] two things. One about empathy. So yes, Google engineers are brilliant and are amazing and all great. And our customers are amazing, and brilliant, as well. And going back to the point before is, everyone has their job and where they need to be successful and we, as you say, we need to make things simpler and enable innovation. And our customers are driving innovation on top of our platform.So, that's the way I think about it. And yes, it's not as simple as it can be—probably—yet, but in studying the early days of Kubernetes, we have been investing a lot in what we call empathy, and the customer empathy workshop, for example. So, I partnered with Kelsey Hightower—and you mentioned yourself trying to start a cluster. The first time we did a workshop with my entire team, so then it was like 50 people [laugh], their task was to spin off a cluster without using any scripts that we had internally.And unfortunately, not many folks succeeded in this task. And out of that came the—what you you call it—a OKR, which was our goal for that quarter, is that you are able to spin off a cluster in three commands and troubleshoot if something goes wrong. Okay, that came out of that workshop. So, I do think that there is a lot of foundation on that empathetic engineering and the open-source of the community helped our Google teams to be more empathetic and understand what are the different use cases that they are trying to solve.And that actually bring me to why I think Kubernetes is so successful. People might be surprised, but the amount of investment we're making on orchestration or placement of containers within Kubernetes is actually pretty small. And it's been very small for the last seven years. Where do we invest time? One is, as I mentioned before, is on the what we call the API machinery.So, Kubernetes has introduced a way that is really suitable for a cloud-native technologies, the idea of reconciliation loop, meaning that the way Kubernetes is—Kubernetes is, like, a powerful automation machine, which can automate, of course, workload placement, but can automate other things. Think about it as a way of the Kubernetes API machinery is observing what is the current state, comparing it to the desired state, and working towards it. Think about, like, a thermostat, which is a different automation versus the ‘if this, then that,' where you need to anticipate different events. So, this idea about the API machinery and the way that you can extend it made it possible for different teams to use that mechanism to automate other things in that space.So, that has been one very powerful mechanism of Kubernetes. And that enabled all of innovation, even if you think about things like Istio, as an example, that's how it started, by leveraging that kind of mechanism to separate storage and so on. So, there are a lot of operators, the way people are managing their databases, or stateful workloads on top of Kubernetes, they're extending this mechanism. So, that's one thing that I think is key and built that ecosystem. The second thing, I am very proud of the community of Kubernetes.Corey: Oh, it's a phenomenal community success story.Chen: It's not easy to build a community, definitely not in open-source. I feel that the idea of values, you know, that I was talking about within my team was actually a big deal for us as we were building the community: how we treat each other, how do we help people start? You know, and we were talking before, like, am I going to talk about DEI and inclusivity, and so on. One of the things that I love about Kubernetes is that it's a new technology. There is actually—[unintelligible 00:29:39] no, even today, there is no one with ten years experience in Kubernetes. And if anyone says they have that, then they are lying.Corey: Time machine. Yes.Chen: That creates an opportunity for a lot of people to become experts in this technology. And by having it in open-source and making everything available, you can actually do it from your living room sofa. That excites me, you know, the idea that you can become an expert in this new technology and you can get involved, and you'll get people that will mentor you and help you through your first PR. And there are some roles within the community that you can start, you know, dipping your toes in the water. It's exciting. So, that makes me really happy, and I know that this community has changed the trajectory of many people's careers, which I love.Corey: I think that's probably one of the most impressive things that it's done. One last question I have for you is that we've talked a fair bit about the history and how we see it progressing through the view toward the somewhat recent past. What do you see coming in the future? What does the future of Kubernetes look like to you?Chen: Continue to be more and more boring. There is the promise of hybrid and multi-cloud, for example, is only possible by technologies like Kubernetes. So, I do think that, as a technology, it will continue to be important by ensuring portability and interoperability of workloads. I see a lot of edge use cases. If you think about it, it's like just lagging a bit around, like, innovation that we've seen in the cloud, can we bring that innovation to the edge, this will require more development within Kubernetes community as well.And that's really actually excites me. I think there's a lot of things that we're going to see there. And by the way, you've seen it also in KubeCon. I mean, there were some announcements in that space. In Google Cloud, we just announced before, like, with customers like Wendy's and Rite Aid as well. So, taking advantage of this technology to allow innovation everywhere.But beyond that, my hope is that we'll continue and hide the complexity. And our challenge will be to not make it a black box. Because that will be, in my opinion, a failure pattern, doesn't help those kinds of platforms. So, that will be the challenge. Can we scope the project, ensure that we have the right observability, and from a use case perspective, I do think edge is super interesting.Corey: I would agree. There are a lot of workloads out there that are simply never going to be hosted in the cloud provider region, for a variety of reasons of varying validity, but it is the truth. I think that the focus on addressing customers where they are has been an emerging best practice for cloud providers and I'm thrilled to see Google leading the charge on that.Chen: Yeah. And you just reminded me, the other thing that we see also more and more is definitely AI and ML workloads running on Kubernetes, which is part of that, right? So, Google Cloud is investing a lot in making an AI/ML easy. And I don't know if many people know, but, like, even Vertex AI, our own platform, is running on GKE. So, that's part of seeing how do we make sure that platform is suitable for these kinds of workloads and really help customers do the heavy lifting.So, that's another set of workloads that are very relevant at the edge. And one of our customers—MLB, for example—two things are interesting there. The first one, I think a lot of people sometimes say, “Okay, I'm going to move to the cloud and I want to know everything right now, how that will evolve.” And one of the things that's been really exciting with working with MLB for the last four years is the journey and the iterations. So, they started somewhat, like, at one phase and then they saw what's possible, and then moved to the next one, and so on. So, that's one. The other thing is that, really, they have so much ML running at the stadium with Google Cloud technology, which is very exciting.Corey: I'm looking forward to seeing how this continues to evolve and progress, particularly in light of the recent correction we're seeing in the market where a lot of hype-driven ideas are being stress test, maybe not in the way we might have hoped that they would, but it'll be really interesting to see what shakes out as far as things that deliver business value and are clear wins for customers versus a lot of the speculative stories that we've been hearing for a while now. Maybe I'm totally wrong on this. And this is going to be a temporary bump in the road, and we'll see no abatement in the ongoing excitement around so many of these emerging technologies, but I'm curious to see how it plays out. But that's the beautiful part about getting to be a pundit—or whatever it is people call me these days that's at least polite enough to say on a podcast—is that when I'm right, people think I'm a visionary, and when I'm wrong, people don't generally hold that against you. It seems like futurist is the easiest job in the world because if you predict and get it wrong, no one remembers. Predict and get it right, you look like a genius.Chen: So, first of all, I'm optimistic. So usually, my predictions are positive. I will say that, you know, what we are seeing, also what I'm hearing from our customers, technology is not for the sake of technology. Actually, nobody cares [laugh]. Even today.Okay, so nothing needs to change for, like, nobody would c—even today, nobody cares about Kubernetes. They need to care, unfortunately, but what I'm hearing from our customers is, “How do we create new experiences? How we make things easy?” Talent shortage is not just with tech people. It's also with people working in the warehouse or working in the store.Can we use technology to help inventory management? There's so many amazing things. So, when there is a real business opportunity, things are so much simpler. People have the right incentives to make it work. Because one thing we didn't talk about—right, we talked about all these new technologies and we talked about scaling team and so on—a lot of time, the challenge is not the technology.A lot of time, the challenge is the process. A lot of time, the challenge is the skills, is the culture, there's so many things. But when you have something—going back to what I said before—how you unite teams, when there's something a clear goal, a clear vision that everybody's excited about, they will make it work. So, I think this is where having a purpose for the innovation is critical for any successful project.Corey: I think and I hope that you're right. I really want to thank you for spending as much time with me as you have. If people want to learn more, where's the best place for them to find you?Chen: So, first of all, on Twitter. I'm there or on LinkedIn. I will say that I'm happy to connect with folks. Generally speaking, at some point in my career, I recognized that I have a voice that can help people, and I've experienced that can also help people build their careers. I'm happy to share that and [unintelligible 00:36:54] folks both in the company and outside of it.Corey: I think that's one of the obligations on a lot of us, once we wanted to get into a certain position or careers to send the ladder back down, for lack of a better term. It's I've never appreciated the perspective, “Well, screw everyone else. I got mine.” The whole point the next generation should have it easier than we did.Chen: Yeah, definitely.Corey: Chen Goldberg, General Manager of Cloud Runtimes and VP of Engineering at Google. I'm Cloud Economist Corey Quinn, and this is Screaming in the Cloud. If you've enjoyed this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice, whereas if you've hated this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice, along with an angry rant of a comment talking about how LPARs on mainframes are absolutely not containers, making sure it's at least far too big to fit in a reasonably-sized Docker container.Corey: If your AWS bill keeps rising and your blood pressure is doing the same, then you need The Duckbill Group. We help companies fix their AWS bill by making it smaller and less horrifying. The Duckbill Group works for you, not AWS. We tailor recommendations to your business and we get to the point. Visit duckbillgroup.com to get started.Announcer: This has been a HumblePod production. Stay humble.

Como comprar mas regalos y gastar menos? Se acercan los gasto navidenos Como comprar mas regalos y gastar menos? Se acercan los gasto navidenos Por: Sharai Isabel Abaroa Silva para: https://www.gob.mx/profeco/documentos/cena-navidena-cuanto-se-gasta?state=published Pase por link para leer articulo completo y ver la tablas. Cena navideña: cuánto se gasta Estamos en la recta final del año, y la temporada navideña está por comenzar (si no es que algunos comercios ya la han adelantado), es una época de mucho movimiento, ajetreos y prisas por comprar los regalos de intercambio, Santa Claus, y cumplir con las tradiciones decembrinas de poner el árbol, los adornos por la casa, las posadas, y por supuesto preparar la cena de Nochebuena y Año Nuevo. Procuraduría Federal del Consumidor Aunque ésta es una de las épocas más frías del año, la Navidad se caracteriza por ser una de las de mayor calidez de todas. Como en otras ciudades del mundo, en México el último mes del año trae consigo convivencia y reencuentros con los seres queridos en un ambiente festivo que llena los hogares de alegría, diversión, color, sabor y aromas típicos. Además de que coincide para los que trabajan de manera formal, con el pago del aguinaldo según el artículo 87 de la Ley Federal del Trabajo. De acuerdo con la Encuesta de Compras de Fin de Año 2016 acerca de los hábitos de consumo, los usos que los mexicanos le dan a su aguinaldo son 3: pago de deudas, compras navideñas y ahorro Las fiestas decembrinas para la mayoría representan un desembolso importante. Al preguntar, cuál es la prioridad en las compras, 66% reconocieron a la comida como la protagonista de las fechas. Asimismo, señalaron a los supermercados como el canal principal para adquirir los ingredientes de la cena. Por su parte, la empresa Gabinete de Comunicación Estratégica (GCE) en 2016, también realizó una encuesta para conocer los hábitos y costumbres de los mexicanos en la temporada navideña, encontrando que 81.6% de los entrevistados celebran la Navidad, de los cuáles 95.1% preparan cena en su hogar esa noche Los platillos que se consumen ese día suelen ser muy variados, según los gustos, preferencias y presupuesto de cada familia. Sin embargo, el pavo por tradición milenaria sigue siendo el plato principal. Los romeritos y el bacalao han disminuido, pues están siendo desplazados por los tamales, pollo rostizados, barbacoa y pozole. Son diversas las bebidas que se hacen presentes en la cena de Nochebuena. Sin embargo, los entrevistados consideran que la sidra y el ponche no pueden faltar, en una ocasión tan especial como esa Comparativo de precios mínimos y máximos de alimentos y bebidas. Algunos de los ingredientes se pueden conseguir todo el año, otros son de temporada, y unos son más selectos y no tan baratos como el bacalao noruego, el pavo, entre otros. Con el fin de ayudarte en tu economía, Profeco a través del programa Quién es Quién en los Precios (QQP), lleva a cabo un levantamiento especial de alimentos navideños, a fin de darte herramientas útiles para ayudarte a realizar una mejor decisión de compra. En esta Brújula de Compra te damos una propuesta de menú para la noche del 24 de diciembre, te decimos cuánto cuestan cada uno de los productos necesarios para ello, en dónde es más barato y a cuánto asciende el gasto por concepto de cena para una familia con seis integrantes. La recopilación de la información se llevó acabo del 6 al 10 de noviembre de 2017, en Ciudad de México y zona metropolitana. El menú sugerido quedó integrado de la siguiente manera: La lista de los ingredientes requeridos para la elaboración de los platillos consta de 26 productos, los cuales se venden desde $6.25 hasta $507.00, según su especie y lugar de compra. En este caso, la mayor diferencia porcentual de precios entre cadenas comerciales se registró en la cebolla blanca, 122% En cuanto a las bebidas envasada, se eligieron tres tipos: 1) refresco en botella de 3 litros, no retornable, 2) sidra ámbar y rosada, y 3) vino blanco y tinto. El primero observa precios más bajos ($17.35 - $23.80), mientras el último el más elevado ($95.50 - $131.00). El ahorro o desembolso de los acompañantes elegidos para disfrutar del evento tan especial es de hasta $24.50 por botella Costo por platillo elaborado y ponche, para una familia de seis integrantes En la sección anterior vimos cuánto cuesta cada uno de los productos en el mercado, a partir de ahí calculamos el costo de los platillos del menú. Para el caso del pavo, estamos suponiendo que sólo se meterá al horno a calentar, pues ya viene ahumado, es por ello que no se incluye en esta sección los ingredientes para su preparación. Si se considera la columna de precios promedio de los tres platos, la ensalada de nochebuena resultó ser la más económica ($90.97), le sigue el spaghetti ($117.25) y al final la ensalada de manzana ($208.31). La diferencia en el cálculo por platillo con precios mínimos y máximos es de hasta 69% Por su exquisito olor y sabor, resultado de la combinación de frutas, el ponche es la bebida por excelencia en las fechas decembrinas. Además de ser deliciosa es de alto valor nutrimental, pues tiene una alta concentración de vitaminas, y se considera un buen aliado contra enfermedades invernales. Los ingredientes, en nuestro país, varían según la región en donde se prepare. Sin embargo, la receta más popular mezcla cañas, guayabas, manzanas, tejocotes, pasas, ciruela pasa, tamarindos, canela y azúcar o piloncillo. De acuerdo con la información recabada por los encuestadores del QQP, el costo promedio de esta preparación para seis personas asciende a $131.39 Gasto en cena navideña Una cena de Navidad elaborada en el hogar que incluya un platillo principal, pasta, ensalada de manzana, ensalada de noche buena, refresco, sidra, vino y uvas, para una familia de seis integrantes, cuesta en promedio $1,360.33. El desembolso que podemos llegar a realizar por la elección del menú, según el lugar en donde se adquieran los comestibles va de $1,193.68 a $1,500.21, lo que representa un gasto extra de $306.53. La decisión es tuya, tú eliges qué cocinas y en dónde compras En esta Brújula te presentamos sólo una selección de productos. En el sitio oficial de la PROFECO en la sección de Quién es Quién en los Precios, puedes consultar precios de más de 800 productos comestibles, incluidas las bebidas en 49 ciudades de la República Mexicana. Recomendaciones …para adquirir productos para la cena a los mejores precios. Elabora un presupuesto para planear mejor tus gastos. De esta manera es menos factible salirse de balance. Elige el menú que vas a degustar, a partir de ahí elabora una lista de todo lo que vas a requerir y apégate a ella. Consigue los productos en establecimientos que cuenten con higiene y equipo necesario para su adecuada conservación. Al regresar a casa, refrigera los que así lo requieran para mantenerlos en buen estado por mayor tiempo. Realiza tus compras con anticipación, así tendrás suficiente tiempo para revisar la información nutrimental y compararla con otras marcas, esto te ayudará a evaluar la calidad de un producto a otro. Recuerda, no siempre lo más caro es lo mejor. Revisa la fecha de caducidad. Ingerir alimentos caducos puede ocasionar complicaciones a la salud. Consulta nuestra herramienta Quién es Quién en los precios en el sitio www.profeco.gob.mx. De esta manera, podrás comparar los precios de los víveres que requieres en los supermercados más cercanos a tu lugar de trabajo y/o residencia desde la comodidad de tu hogar, sin tener que acudir directamente a ellos, para saber en dónde los venden más baratos. Prescinde de las compras de pánico, así te ahorrarás enormes filas, caos vial, congestionamiento en los estacionamientos, mala atención en los supermercados y aglomeraciones. Además, corres el riesgo de no encontrar todo lo que buscas.

In this episode, guests Jonathan Uber and Andrew Bittner, co-founders of HOME DAO, share how their company is impacting sustainability, self-reliance and community-driven collaboration. DAO stands for Decentralized Autonomous Organization. Home DAO funds public goods, starting with renewable energy, to build a better world focusing on solution-oriented infrastructures. The sustainable infrastructures related to food, energy and digital assets (particularly the new cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin) are discussed at length.   Co-host Jim Gale shares that his company, Food Forest Abundance, has its own digital asset called a yield coin, which is directly linked to ethical, permaculture-style food production based on caloric value.  Home DAO will be dropping 770 NFTs (non-fungible tokens) to those identified with his company's mission. The two companies share many values and approaches for bringing greater freedom to all through new technologies, building communities, and trust based on transparency. Topics covered in this interview include: –Positively impacting the world through Web3 now, which provides  “a new beautiful, compounded opportunity for connection” and “communication that can be trusted,” according to Andrew.  –Web3 breaks the mold and adds a new dimension to human capability for communication across the planet, no longer having to work through banks, through centralized governments,  or through centralized companies.  We can literally connect peer-to-peer about all the things we want to communicate. –Jonathan elaborates, saying that it is like “owning your own key,” having the freedom to move through different apps and layers without permission.  Being decentralized allows Web3 not to be shut down in the way Web2 platforms like Facebook or Twitter can be through the control of others. –Jim calls it a “fundamental piece of the freedom puzzle.” –Commodities built on trusted layers of real accounting are elaborated upon with:  Bitcoin being a commodity of money. Yield coins being the commodity of food. And Home DAO being the commodity of infrastructure for sustainability. –Home DAO is a funding mechanism for sustainable projects with a focus on communities, bridging the worlds of trust and building infrastructure in your backyard to give you freedom. Having a trusted ledger and doing the accounting publicly is used to build trust.  –A Freedom Farm Academy offered by Jim's company is one of those infrastructures.  Andrew likes the concept because “Food is one of the faster paybacks of any type of infrastructure we look at.”  –The Bitcoin challenge is finding cheaper ways to mine, like using renewable energy.  –Great optimism was shared by all, for this profound time in history, of moving through the discomfort of seeing our flawed institutions and choosing to change the world and design new systems. ​​ Jonathan Uber: Jonathan is the head of Operations for the HOME DAO.  He believes sustainability is a lifestyle and looks to implement sustainable practices in his personal and business life at every opportunity. He is currently the President of Operations and Sales for Guaranteed Clean Energy and Co-Founder of GCE Healthcare, an energy advisory firm for institutional healthcare facilities and hospital networks. Jonathan's previous background included working in medical device distribution, development, and business operations. He particularly focused on sustainability projects and anesthesia-related products with large hospital groups. He helped bring to market a device that would allow hospitals to not emit waste anesthetic gas and provided an opportunity to recycle the gas.   Andrew Bittner: Andrew Bittner is the head of the Business Development and Strategic Relationships for the HOME DAO. He is also the CEO/Founder of Guaranteed Clean Energy, an energy advisory firm specializing in holistic sustainability development projects for K-12 schools, and municipalities in the US. GCE was awarded as the “Top Cleantech Startup” in 2021, and the Best Corporate Office in Columbus, OH in 2019. Andrew's background as a successful entrepreneur is mostly in the energy and financial space where he has owned and successfully exited multiple energy companies with specialties including energy deregulation, commodities trading, LED lighting, and energy engineering. Andrew also has held a Registered Representative status obtaining his Series 63 licenses through FINRA and has over 16 years' experience in finance and business insurance strategy and 12 years within the energy industry. He has been in the blockchain world for 6 years, and is personally devoted to a decentralized world with a focus on basic needs being met in abundance for humanity. HOME DAO: Website: https://thehomedao.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheHomeDAO Discord: https://discord.com/invite/MeEw42mQsZ GCE: https://www.guaranteedcleanenergy.com/ Food Forest Abundance: Website: https://foodforestabundance.com Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/FoodForestAbundance Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/foodforestabundance/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/FFAbundance LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/food-forest-abundance/ The Jim Gale Show Podcast: https://linktr.ee/jimgaleshow Produced by: https://socialchameleon.us

In this “Cocktails with Kev” episode (it was evening, after all), I get loose and reveal what I've been seeing behind the scenes at GCE. 

Activision and Atari bury the hatchet CES is flooded with 3rd party VCS carts Video games give Wall Street the jitters These stories and many more on this episode of the VGNRTM This episode we will look back at the biggest stories in and around the video game industry in June 1982. As always, we'll mostly be using magazine cover dates, and those are of course always a bit behind the actual events. Mads from the Retro Asylum is our cohost. You can find his other fine podcasts here: http://retroasylum.com and https://playthroughpod.com/ Get us on your mobile device: Android: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly92aWRlb2dhbWVuZXdzcm9vbXRpbWVtYWNoaW5lLmxpYnN5bi5jb20vcnNz iOS: https://podcasts.apple.com/de/podcast/video-game-newsroom-time-machine And if you like what we are doing here at the podcast, don't forget to like us on your podcasting app of choice, YouTube, and/or support us on patreon! https://www.patreon.com/VGNRTM Send comments on twitter @videogamenewsr2 Or Instagram https://www.instagram.com/vgnrtm Or videogamenewsroomtimemachine@gmail.com Links: 7 Minutes in Heaven: Naughty Boy Video Version - https://www.patreon.com/posts/7-minutes-in-boy-69425784 https://www.mobygames.com/game/naughty-boy Corrections: May 1982 Ep - https://www.patreon.com/posts/68285778 https://www.mobygames.com/game/arcade/super-cobra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnavox_Odyssey Tron - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084827/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 https://www.mobygames.com/game/atari-2600/pac-man Wild Bill Stealey - Microprose - https://www.patreon.com/posts/36710924 1822 Charles Babbage announces Difference Engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difference_engine https://www.computerhistory.org/babbage/engines/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameStop#Babbage's_(1984%E2%80%931994) 1972 The Carnegie Institute sees computers as future of education https://www.nytimes.com/1972/06/02/archives/electronics-seen-as-education-key-carnegie-study-urges-us-aid-for.html?searchResultPosition=16 Nolan Bushnell contracts with Bally https://archive.org/details/1974-06-25-john-britz-depositon-and-exhibits/1974-06-25%20John%20Britz%20Exhibit%202/page/n0/mode/2up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutting_Associates Atari incorporated https://twitter.com/GameResearch_E/status/1541419743646720001 1982: Bankers bearish on coin-op Games People Pay Early-June 1982 pg. 1 Federal spending cuts hit coinop Play Meter June 15th, 1982 pg. 22 https://www.nytimes.com/1982/06/03/garden/issue-and-debate-should-video-games-be-restricted-by-law.html?searchResultPosition=3 Chuck E Cheese reports earnings The Pizza Times June 1982 pg. 5 Atari, Gottlieb split Krull license Play Meter June 1st, 1982 pg. 32 https://archive.org/details/Electronic_Games_Volume_01_Number_04_1982-06_Reese_Communications_US/page/n7/mode/1up?view=theater https://www.mobygames.com/game/krull Japanese imports drying up Play Meter June 1st, 1982 pg. 32 Experts suggest arcade games may become collectible Games People Pay Early-June 1982 pg. 6 Thief ads list Bernie Stolar as director Play Meter June 1st, 1982 pg. 43 https://www.mobygames.com/game/arcade/thief__ https://flyers.arcade-museum.com/?page=flyer&db=videodb&id=1735&image=1 Count Up to the Crash! Video Games add pep to dreary CES https://www.nytimes.com/1982/06/09/business/the-video-game-sales-war.html?searchResultPosition=2 GCE introduces Vectrex Toy & Hobby World June 1982 pg. S9 Lange Nacht der Computerspiele - https://computerspielenacht.htwk-leipzig.de/computerspielenacht-start/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vectrex Entex introduces Adventure Vision Toy & Hobby World June 1982 pg. S34 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventure_Vision http://www.adventurevision.com/SystemPictures-loose.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entex_Industries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Knight_(pinball) Stand-alone electronic games bet on licenses Toy & Hobby World June 1982 pg. S1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Professor https://www.achtziger-forum.de/viewtopic.php?p=16206 Mattel has finally launched the Intellivision keyboard component... sorta https://archive.org/details/Electronic_Games_Volume_01_Number_04_1982-06_Reese_Communications_US/page/n9/mode/1up?view=theater Don Daglow Part 1 - PDP - Mattel - Intellivision - EA - https://www.patreon.com/posts/38445119 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellivision#Keyboard_Component ColecoVision to have VCS add-on https://archive.org/details/Electronic_Games_Volume_01_Number_04_1982-06_Reese_Communications_US/page/n8/mode/1up?view=theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ColecoVision#Atari_2600_expansion Tiger Electronics enters the VCS market Toy & Hobby World June 1982 pg. S20 https://www.mobygames.com/company/tigervision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Electronics https://www.mobygames.com/game/miner-2049er https://www.mobygames.com/game/manic-miner Gauntlet Handheld - https://archive.org/details/hh_tgaunt Fox enters cartridge market https://www.nytimes.com/1982/06/07/business/fox-to-offer-video-games.html?searchResultPosition=3 https://www.mobygames.com/company/fox-video-games-inc Jerry Jewell - Sirius Software - https://www.patreon.com/posts/57602735 Activision and Atari bury the hatchet https://archive.org/details/Electronic_Games_Volume_01_Number_04_1982-06_Reese_Communications_US/page/n8/mode/1up?view=theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activision#Early_years_(1980%E2%80%931982) Activision announces new games Toy & Hobby World June 1982 pg. S21 https://www.mobygames.com/browse/games/activision-publishing-inc/offset,1450/so,1d/list-games/ Activision earnings jump ten-fold Toys Hobbies and Crafts June 1982, pg. 13 https://www.nytimes.com/1982/06/11/business/mattel-profit-17.1-million.html?searchResultPosition=7 Gregory Fischbach Part 1 - Activision - Acclaim - https://www.patreon.com/posts/46578120 Fears of crash hit Warner stock https://www.nytimes.com/1982/06/04/business/market-place-pac-man-and-beyond.html?searchResultPosition=4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner_Bros.#New_owners Toy retailers prepare for the cartridge onslaught Toy & Hobby World June 1982, pg. S1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSR,_Inc. Toy retailers urged to attend CES Toy & Hobby World June 1982 pg. S4 Osborne 1 gets reviewed https://archive.org/details/sim_byte_1982-06_7_6/page/n351/mode/1up?view=theater Corvus shows off their Concept https://archive.org/details/sim_byte_1982-06_7_6/page/5/mode/1up?view=theater https://archive.org/details/kilobaudmagazine-1982-06/page/n25/mode/1up Commodore takes on IBM https://www.nytimes.com/1982/06/22/science/personal-computers-how-much-memory-to-buy.html?searchResultPosition=2 IBM has no time for the UK https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1982-06-03/page/n4/mode/1up Speccy and Beeb get off to rocky starts https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly?query=1982-06 Timex launches the Sinclair 1000 Toy & Hobby World June 1982 pg. S4 7 Minutes in Heaven - 3D Monster Maze - April 1982 - https://www.patreon.com/posts/7-minutes-in-3d-66504463 Sinclair to go public https://archive.org/details/Sinclair_User_003/page/13/mode/1up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Research Llamasoft advertises Vic20 games http://minotaurproject.co.uk/lshistory8.php https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1982-06-03/page/n5/mode/1up Creative Computing isn't giving up on video discs https://archive.org/details/creativecomputing-1982-06/page/n9/mode/1up?view=theater 7 Minutes in Heaven - Adventures in Video Land - https://www.patreon.com/posts/7-minutes-in-in-61568657 Byte goes video disk crazy https://archive.org/details/sim_byte_1982-06_7_6/page/3/mode/1up?view=theater Professor equates video games to masturbation Replay June 1982, pg. 83   Recommended Links: The History of How We Play: https://thehistoryofhowweplay.wordpress.com/ Gaming Alexandria: https://www.gamingalexandria.com/wp/ They Create Worlds: https://tcwpodcast.podbean.com/ Digital Antiquarian: https://www.filfre.net/ The Arcade Blogger: https://arcadeblogger.com/ Retro Asylum: http://retroasylum.com/category/all-posts/ Retro Game Squad: http://retrogamesquad.libsyn.com/ Playthrough Podcast: https://playthroughpod.com/ Retromags.com: https://www.retromags.com/ Sound Effects by Ethan Johnson of History of How We Play. Copyright Karl Kuras

Esto es HistoCast. No es Esparta pero casi. En la efeméride del comienzo tan horrible acontecimiento, hablamos de la Guerra Civil. Lo hacemos con motivo de la publicación de libro Sangre en la frente junto a los autores con @jordibrufotos y Jesús Jiménez, preguntados por @tamtamveramendi, @HugoACanete y @goyix_salduero. - Imagen Vicente Rojo artífice de la defensa - Imagen La desbandá - Imagen Margaritas en OrduñaSecciones Historia: - Preguntas biográficas - 12:02- Sección Dinosaurios en Asturias - 1:13:19- El libro - 1:56:12- Tres imágenes - 2:07:28 - Coloreado - 2:47:06- Bibliografía - 3:03:25

Este martes en Ciro Gómez Leyva por la Mañana, el abogado Javier Coello Trejo, asegura que la detención de Emilio Lozoya Austin se dio a partir de que su padre, Emilio Lozoya Thalmann, lo entregó a las autoridades mexicanas. Por otra parte, el abogado aseguró que va a denunciar a Emilio Lozoya Austin por haberle revocado los poderes como su representante legal. También comentó que no puede permitir que el Fiscal Alejandro Gertz le llame "bandido" y aseguró que va a presentar una demanda contra Alejandro Gertz para que le acredite lo dicho en la llamada con el padre de Emilio Lozoya. En otras noticias, de acuerdo con una encuesta levantada por el Gabinete de Comunicación Estratégica (GCE) el 41% de las personas dice que el país está estancado. Sobre el conocimiento de los candidatos, el 53% de los encuestados no ha escuchado a algún aspirante a la presidencia. También se le preguntó a la gente si una persona de otro partido debe tener oportunidad de gobernar a lo que el 46% respondió que sí. En otros temas, este 29 y 30 de junio se llevará a cabo la Expo Pantalla en el World Trade Center de la Ciudad de México con un horario de 14:00 a 20:00 hrs. Esto y más en Ciro Gómez Leyva por la Mañana.

De acuerdo con una encuesta levantada por el Gabinete de Comunicación Estratégica (GCE) el 41% de las personas dice que el país está estancado. Sobre el conocimiento de los candidatos, el 53% de los encuestados no ha escuchado a algún aspirante a la presidencia. También se le preguntó a la gente si una persona de otro partido debe tener oportunidad de gobernar a lo que el 46% respondió que sí.

L'excès de photons gamma du centre galactique (GCE) est l'un des sujets les plus chauds du moment en astrophysique. Deux interprétations s'affrontent et aucune des deux ne rend les armes. Il y a deux semaines, je vous relatais une étude montrant la plausibilité d'une origine par une grande population de pulsars millisecondes, mais aujourd'hui, une autre étude vient rebattre les cartes en mettant en évidence une distribution énergétique de ces photons gamma que des pulsars sont incapables de produire, penchant donc pour une origine par l'annihilation de particules de matière noire... L'étude est publiée dans Physical Review D.

Docker CEO Scott Johnston joins us to talk about the announcements from this week’s DockerCon, the transition from an enterprise to a developer tools company, and the Internet’s favourite whale. Do you have something cool to share? Some questions? Let us know: web: kubernetespodcast.com mail: kubernetespodcast@google.com twitter: @kubernetespod Chatter of the week Podes and antipodes Side note: Kubernetes needs the concept of an Antipod. BRB, writing a KEP Google Cloud Podcasts News of the week DockerCon 2022 Docker Extensions Docker Desktop for Linux Late breaking news: Docker acquires Nestybox Spot VMs now on GCE and GKE; spot pods now on GKE Autopilot Fully managed Linkerd with Buoyant Cloud Sign up for CDcon and save 40% by using the code CdCon22AMEET40 AWS adds Kubernetes resource view Deploying Kubernetes clusters in absurd languages by Lee Briggs Links from the interview Docker DockerCon ‘22 DockerCon ‘14, the announcement of Kubernetes Return or Revenge? Scott’s history Four degrees from Stanford, including an MSMSE Sun and Netscape Java Servlets and J2EE Moore’s Law and Metcalfe’s Law Standard on the Internet Tom Lyon Loudcloud/Opsware and a16z Puppet Scott joins Docker in 2014 The monorepo The Soul of a New Machine Docker Swarm Messages from the future and the Google crystal ball Open Cotainers Initiative Docker Desktop for Apple Silicon Macs virtiofs for Mac $2.1 billion valuation Moby Project Moby Ice Cube The Dockershim saga, as reported throughout the episodes: Don’t panic about Docker Dockershim deprecation FAQ Mirantis will support the Dockershim But seriously, don’t worry about the Dockershim Dockershim is, like, proper gone The puns and joke section Docker is krilled to see you Billy T James Beached Az. Can’t eat chups! Docker Extensions CNCF Landscape or Magic Eye? Docker Desktop for Linux Multi-arch on Docker Hub Docker roadmap Scott Johnston on Twitter

Good Cause Eviction (GCE) AKA 'No Eviction Ever!'For those New Yorkers not working in government, the concept of why a tenant may earn eviction from a rental unit seems somewhat clear. They may include non-payment of rent, behavior unbecoming a tenant or, at the discretion of the landlord, non-renewal of their lease. There are other reasons one might imagine too.But if the Good Cause Eviction bill were to pass, it will become extremely difficult for a landlord to raise rent, choose not to renew a lease, and any number of other reasons  why being a multifamily building owner may not be the road to building wealth it has always been considered!Add to the mix the Housing Security & Tenant Protection Act of 2019 that put all kinds of financial prohibitions on owners, and finding a universe of potential building buyers may become increasingly difficult along with any ability for the owner to increase their buildings value!Our guest for this episode is a Partner at the New York City law firm of Rosenberg & Estis. This firm, with over 80 attorneys, is NYC's largest firm focusing solely on real estate!Alex Lycoyannis has been with R&E since 2002, and he has represented clients ranging from the country's largest real estate developers to nationally-recognized commercial tenants and individuals who own a single building.On the subject of Good Cause Eviction he has published many articles and has argued before the New York State Senate. He is of the opinion that along with the 2019 bill, if GCE were to pass, it would devastate owners and hurt the very people purportedly being helped, the tenants!Now sit back, and enjoy the conversation!Do You Ever Wonder Host Mike HaltmanCEO, Hallmark Abstract ServiceBoard Chair, Heroes To Heroes Foundationmhaltman@hallmarkabstractllc.comhttps://www.hallmarkabstractllc.comAlex Lycoyannis, PartnerRosenberg & Estisalycoyannis@rosenbergestis.com https://www.rosenbergestis.com/attorney/alexander-lycoyannis/____________________________________________Do You Ever Wonder is brought to you by New York title insurance provider Hallmark Abstract Service.Hallmark Abstract Service...You Buy, We Protect!What's your favorite podcast platform? Do You Ever Wonder is on there!Apple : https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/id1589834260Spotify : https://open.spotify.com/show/29rcULIGYPoa2k1SL1nfebGoogle : https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5idXp6c3Byb3V0LmNvbS8xODYyOTg2LnJzcw==Amazon : https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/5824f1cf-0719-4617-b874-e9ff1f38456e/do-you-ever-wonder-with-your-host-mike-haltmanStitcher Podcasts : https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=657987iHeart Radio : https://iheart.com/podcast/90144298/Pandora: https://www.pandora.com/podcast/do-you-ever-wonderwith-your-host-mike-haltman/PC:78342

Following the Army entrance exams, the aspirants, predominantly from privileged private schools, awaited their fate in a small conference room. When ‘Mr McAulay' was called, Magnus followed the subaltern into a stark room that veritably crackled with razor-edged military crispness. The seeds of Magnus's guarded approach to authority were sown well before the art teacher denied him entry for the GCE school leaving certificate: Magnus wasn't even entered for the examination even though he'd topped the class in art.

There is a well organised private home and online lesson at your doorstep or residence. BEST HOME-TUTORS prepares your wards or students for internal or external examinations such as: 1) Basic 1-6 (Entrance Examination) 2)J.S.S 1-3 (B.E.C.E) 3)S.S.S 1-3 (JAMB, WAEC, NECO, GCE, POST UTME) 4) DIPLOMA, NAGCE, IJMB, 5) MATHEMATICS/FURTHER MATHEMATICS CLINIC 6) ENGLISH AND LINGUISTICS CLINIC 7) FOREIGN INTERNATIONAL EXAMINATIONS: SAT, TOEFL, IELTS, GRE, GMAT, OET, PTE e.t.c Best Home-Tutors, Home Coaching, a sure path to success.

Jordan sits down with Lynn Bello and Jason to talk about the OSCQR rubric and GCE courses.

Mark Herschberg Author of the soon to be best seller "The Career Toolkit" https://www.thecareertoolkitbook.com/ which shows you how to design and execute your personal plan to achieve the career you deserve. available at https://www.amazon.com/Career-Toolkit-Mark-Herschberg/dp/0960100741/ He is sits on the board of directors for TechieYouth https://www.techieyouth.org/, which helps foster kids & at-risk youth become self-sufficient IT/tech professionals. About Mark Herschberg https://www.linkedin.com/in/hershey/ Currently doing fractional CTO work as I market my book and speak at events but open to additional contract or returning to full time around the end of 2021 / start of 2022 Seasoned executive and cybersecurity expert who can bridge the divide between business and technology. I have started, grown, and fixed startup companies spanning 10 different verticals as well as helped two Fortune 500 companies with their internal startup initiatives, and helped create educational programs at MIT and HBS. I typically lead engineering, product, and data science. Technologies (and other keywords): Proficient: Ruby on Rails (RoR), MySQL, Mongo, AWS, GCE, Redis, Hadoop, Git, REST / RESTful, Design Patterns, Microservices, Service Oriented Architecture (SOA), Git Rusty: Java, J2EE, J2ME, Spring, Hibernate, Puppet, R, ELK, Storm, Pig, Hive, Javascript, JQuery, Ajax, Heroku, SVN Managed: Python, Django, GitLab, kubernetes (k8s), docker, C#, .NET, PHP, React, Angular, Postgres, Ansible, Chef Server OS: Linux, Unix, Ubuntu, CentOS, Windows Compliance: HIPAA, CCPA, GDPR, PCI Cybersecurity, authentication, identity, red team. blue team, purple team. #leadership, #networking, #worktrends, #communication, and #professionaldevelopment --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/getajobintech/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/getajobintech/support

About MilesAs Chief Technology Officer at SADA, Miles Ward leads SADA's cloud strategy and solutions capabilities. His remit includes delivering next-generation solutions to challenges in big data and analytics, application migration, infrastructure automation, and cost optimization; reinforcing our engineering culture; and engaging with customers on their most complex and ambitious plans around Google Cloud.Previously, Miles served as Director and Global Lead for Solutions at Google Cloud. He founded the Google Cloud's Solutions Architecture practice, launched hundreds of solutions, built Style-Detection and Hummus AI APIs, built CloudHero, designed the pricing and TCO calculators, and helped thousands of customers like Twitter who migrated the world's largest Hadoop cluster to public cloud and Audi USA who re-platformed to k8s before it was out of alpha, and helped Banco Itau design the intercloud architecture for the bank of the future.Before Google, Miles helped build the AWS Solutions Architecture team. He wrote the first AWS Well-Architected framework, proposed Trusted Advisor and the Snowmobile, invented GameDay, worked as a core part of the Obama for America 2012 “tech” team, helped NASA stream the Curiosity Mars Rover landing, and rebooted Skype in a pinch.Earning his Bachelor of Science in Rhetoric and Media Studies from Willamette University, Miles is a three-time technology startup entrepreneur who also plays a mean electric sousaphone.Links: SADA.com: https://sada.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/milesward Email: miles@sada.com TranscriptAnnouncer: Hello, and welcome to Screaming in the Cloud with your host, Chief Cloud Economist at The Duckbill Group, Corey Quinn. This weekly show features conversations with people doing interesting work in the world of cloud, thoughtful commentary on the state of the technical world, and ridiculous titles for which Corey refuses to apologize. This is Screaming in the Cloud.Corey: It seems like there is a new security breach every day. Are you confident that an old SSH key, or a shared admin account, isn't going to come back and bite you? If not, check out Teleport. Teleport is the easiest, most secure way to access all of your infrastructure. The open source Teleport Access Plane consolidates everything you need for secure access to your Linux and Windows servers—and I assure you there is no third option there. Kubernetes clusters, databases, and internal applications like AWS Management Console, Yankins, GitLab, Grafana, Jupyter Notebooks, and more. Teleport's unique approach is not only more secure, it also improves developer productivity. To learn more visit: goteleport.com. And not, that is not me telling you to go away, it is: goteleport.com.Corey: This episode is sponsored in part by our friends at Redis, the company behind the incredibly popular open source database that is not the bind DNS server. If you're tired of managing open source Redis on your own, or you're using one of the vanilla cloud caching services, these folks have you covered with the go to manage Redis service for global caching and primary database capabilities; Redis Enterprise. To learn more and deploy not only a cache but a single operational data platform for one Redis experience, visit redis.com/hero. Thats r-e-d-i-s.com/hero. And my thanks to my friends at Redis for sponsoring my ridiculous non-sense.  Corey: Welcome to Screaming in the Cloud. I'm Corey Quinn. I am joined today, once again by my friend and yours, Miles Ward, who's the CTO at SADA. However, he is, as I think of him, the closest thing the Google Cloud world has to Corey Quinn. Now, let's be clear, not the music and dancing part that is Forrest Brazeal, but Forrest works at Google Cloud, whereas Miles is a reasonably salty third-party. Miles, thank you for coming back and letting me subject you to that introduction.Miles: Corey, I appreciate that introduction. I am happy to provide substantial salt. It is easy, as I play brass instruments that produce my spit in high volumes. It's the most disgusting part of any possible introduction. For the folks in the audience, I am surrounded by a collection of giant sousaphones, tubas, trombones, baritones, marching baritones, trumpets, and pocket trumpets.So, Forrest threw down the gauntlet and was like, I can play a keyboard, and sing, and look cute at the same time. And so I decided to fail at all three. We put out a new song just a bit ago that's, like, us thanking all of our customers and partners, covering Kool & the Gang “Celebration,” and I neither look good, [laugh] play piano, or smiling, or [capturing 00:01:46] any of the notes; I just play the bass part, it's all I got to do.Corey: So, one thing that I didn't get to talk a lot about because it's not quite in my universe, for one, and for another, it is during the pre re:Invent—pre:Invent, my nonsense thing—run up, which is Google Cloud Next.Miles: Yes.Corey: And my gag a few years ago is that I'm not saying that Google is more interested in what they're building and what they're shipping, but even their conference is called Next. Buh dum, hiss.Miles: [laugh].Corey: So, I didn't really get to spend a lot of attention on the Google Cloud releases that came out this year, but given that SADA is in fact the, I believe, largest Google Cloud partner on the internet, and thus the world—Miles: [unintelligible 00:02:27] new year, three years in a row back, baby.Corey: Fantastic. I assume someone's watch got stuck or something. But good work. So, you have that bias in the way that I have a bias, which is your business is focused around Google Cloud the way that mine is focused on AWS, but neither of us is particularly beholden to that given company. I mean, you do have the not getting fired as partner, but that's a bit of a heavy lift; I don't think I can mouth off well enough to get you there.So, we have a position of relative independence. So, you were tracking Google Next, the same way that I track re:Invent. Well, not quite the same way I track re:Invent; there are some significant differences. What happened at Cloud Next 2021, that the worst of us should be paying attention to?Miles: Sure. I presented 10% of the material at the first re:Invent. There are 55 sessions; I did six. And so I have been at Cloud events for a really long time and really excited about Google's willingness to dive into demos in a way that I think they have been a little shy about. Kelsey Hightower is the kind of notable deep exception to that. Historically, he's been ready to dive into the, kind of, heavy hands-on piece but—Corey: Wait, those were demos? [Thought 00:03:39] was just playing Tetris on stage for the love of it.Miles: [laugh]. No. And he really codes all that stuff up, him and the whole team.Corey: Oh, absol—I'm sorry. If I ever grow up, I wish to be Kelsey Hightower.Miles: [laugh]. You and me both. So, he had kind of led the charge. We did a couple of fun little demos while I was there, but they've really gotten a lot further into that, and I think are doing a better job of packaging the benefits to not just developers, but also operators and data scientists and the broader roles in the cloud ecosystem from the new features that are being launched. And I think, different than the in-person events where there's 10, 20,000, 40,000 people in the audience paying attention, I think they have to work double-hard to capture attention and get engineers to tune in to what's being launched.But if you squint and look close, there are some, I think, very interesting trends that sit in the back of some of the very first launches in what I think are going to be whole veins of launches from Google over the course of the next several years that we are working really hard to track along with and make sure we're extracting maximum value from for our customers.Corey: So, what was it that they announced that is worth paying attention to? Now, through the cacophony of noise, one announcement that [I want to note 00:04:49] was tied to Next was the announcement that GME group, I believe, is going to be putting their futures exchange core trading systems on Google Cloud. At which point that to me—and I know people are going to yell at me, and I don't even slightly care—that is the last nail in the coffin of the idea that well, Google is going to turn this off in a couple years. Sorry, no. That is not a thing that's going to happen. Worst case, they might just stop investing it as aggressively as they are now, but even that would be just a clown-shoes move that I have a hard time envisioning.Miles: Yeah, you're talking now over a dozen, over ten year, over a billion-dollar commitments. So, you've got to just really, really hate your stock price if you're going to decide to vaporize that much shareholder value, right? I mean, we think that, in Google, stock price is a material fraction of the recognition of the growth trajectory for cloud, which is now basically just third place behind YouTube. And I think you can do the curve math, it's not like it's going to take long.Corey: Right. That requires effectively ejecting Thomas Kurian as the head of Google Cloud and replacing him with the former SVP of Bad Decisions at Yahoo.Miles: [laugh]. Sure. Google has no shyness about continuing to rotate leadership. I was there through three heads of Google Cloud, so I don't expect that Thomas will be the last although I think he may well go down in history as having been the best. The level of rotation to the focuses that I think are most critical, getting enterprise customers happy, successful, committed, building macroscale systems, in systems that are critical to the core of the business on GCP has grown at an incredible rate under his stewardship. So, I think he's doing a great job.Corey: He gets a lot of criticism—often from Googlers—when I wind up getting the real talk from them, which is, “Can you tell me what you really think?” Their answer is, “No,” I'm like, “Okay, next question. Can I go out and buy you eight beers and then”— and it's like, “Yeah.” And the answer that I get pretty commonly is that he's brought too much Oracle into Google. And okay, that sounds like a bad thing because, you know, Oracle, but let's be clear here, but what are you talking about specifically? And what they say distills down to engineers are no longer the end-all be-all of everything that Google Cloud. Engineers don't get to make sales decisions, or marketing decisions, or in some cases, product decisions. And that is not how Google has historically been run, and they don't like the change. I get it, but engineering is not the only hard thing in the world and it's not the only business area that builds value, let's be clear on this. So, I think that the things that they don't like are in fact, what Google absolutely needs.Miles: I think, one, the man is exceptionally intimidating and intentionally just hyper, hyper attentive to his business. So, one of my best employees, Brad [Svee 00:07:44], he worked together with me to lay out what was the book of our whole department, my team of 86 people there. What are we about? What do we do? And like I wanted this as like a memoriam to teach new hires as got brought in. So, this is, like, 38 pages of detail about our process, our hiring method, our promotional approach, all of it. I showed that to my new boss who had come in at the time, and he thought some of the pictures looked good. When we showed it to TK, he read every paragraph. I watched him highlight the paragraphs as he went through, and he read it twice as fast as I can read the thing. I think he does that to everybody's documents, everywhere. So, there's a level of just manual rigor that he's brought to the practice that was certainly not there before that. So, that alone, it can be intimidating for folks, but I think people that are high performance find that very attractive.Corey: Well, from my perspective, he is clearly head and shoulders above Adam Selipsky, and Scott Guthrie—the respective heads of AWS and Azure—for one key reason: He is the only one of those three people who follows me on Twitter. And—Miles: [laugh].Corey: —honestly, that is how I evaluate vendors.Miles: That's the thing. That's the only measure, yep. I've worked on for a long time with Selipsky, and I think that it will be interesting to see whether Adam's approach to capital allocation—where he really, I think, thinks of himself as the manager of thousands of startups, as opposed to a manager of a global business—whether that's a more efficient process for creating value for customers, then, where I think TK is absolutely trying to build a much more unified, much more singular platform. And a bunch of the launches really speak to that, right? So, one of the product announcements that I think is critical is this idea of the global distributed cloud, Google Distributed Cloud.We started with Kubernetes. And then you layer on to that, okay, we'll take care of Kubernetes for you; we call that Anthos. We'll build a bunch of structural controls and features into Anthos to make it so that you can really deal with stuff in a global way. Okay, what does that look like further? How do we get out into edge environments? Out into diverse hardware? How do we partner up with everybody to make sure that, kind of like comparing Apple's approach to Google's approach, you have an Android ecosystem of Kubernetes providers instead of just one place you can buy an outpost. That's generally the idea of GDC. I think that's a spot where you're going to watch Google actually leverage the muscle that it already built in understanding open-source dynamics and understanding collaboration between companies as opposed to feeling like it's got to be built here. We've got to sell it here. It's got to have our brand on it.Corey: I think that there's a stupendous and extreme story that is still unfolding over at Google Cloud. Now, re:Invent this year, they wound up talking all about how what they were rolling out was a focus on improving primitives. And they're right. I love their managed database service that they launched because it didn't exist.Miles: Yeah Werner's slide, “It's primitives, not frameworks.” I was like, I think customers want solutions, not frameworks or primitives. [laugh]. What's your plan?Corey: Yeah. However, I take a different perspective on all of this, which is that is a terrific spin on the big headline launches all missed the re:Invent timeline, and… oops, so now we're just going to talk about these other things instead. And that's great, but then they start talking about industrial IOT, and mainframe migrations, and the idea of private 5G, and running fleets of robots. And it's—Miles: Yeah, that's a cool product.Corey: Which one? I'm sorry, they're all very different things.Miles: Private 5G.Corey: Yeah, if someone someday will explain to me how it differs from Wavelength, but that's neither here nor there. You're right, they're all interesting, but none of them are actually doing the thing that I do, which is build websites, [unintelligible 00:11:31] looking for web services, it kind of says it in the name. And it feels like it's very much broadening into everything, and it's very difficult for me to identify—and if I have trouble that I guarantee you customers do—of, which services are for me and which are very much not? In some cases, the only answer to that is to check the pricing. I thought Kendra, their corporate information search thing was for me, then it's 7500 bucks a month to get started with that thing, and that is, “I can hire an internal corporate librarian to just go and hunt through our Google Drive.” Great.Miles: Yeah.Corey: So, there are—or our Dropbox, or our Slack. We have, like, five different information repositories, and this is how corporate nonsense starts, let me assure you.Miles: Yes. We call that luxury SaaS, you must enjoy your dozens of overlapping bills for, you know, what Workspace gives you as a single flat rate.Corey: Well, we have [unintelligible 00:12:22] a lot of this stuff, too. Google Drive is great, but we use Dropbox for holding anything that touches our customer's billing information, just because I—to be clear, I do not distrust Google, but it also seems a little weird to put the confidential billing information for one of their competitors on there to thing if a customer were to ask about it. So, it's the, like, I don't believe anyone's doing anything nefarious, but let's go ahead and just make sure, in this case.Miles: Go further man. Vimeo runs on GCP. You think YouTube doesn't want to look at Vimeo stats? Like they run everything on GCP, so they have to have arrived at a position of trust somehow. Oh, I know how it's called encryption. You've heard of encryption before? It's the best.Corey: Oh, yes. I love these rumors that crop up every now and again that Amazon is going to start scanning all of its customer content, somehow. It's first, do you have any idea how many compute resources that would take and to if they can actually do that and access something you're storing in there, against their attestations to the contrary, then that's your story because one of them just makes them look bad, the other one utterly destroys their entire business.Miles: Yeah.Corey: I think that that's the one that gets the better clicks. So no, they're not doing that.Miles: No, they're not doing that. Another product launch that I thought was super interesting that describes, let's call it second place—the third place will be the one where we get off into the technical deep end—but there's a whole set of coordinated work they're calling Cortex. So, let's imagine you go to a customer, they say, “I want to understand what's happening with my business.” You go, “Great.” So, you use SAP, right? So, you're a big corporate shop, and that's your infrastructure of choice. There are a bunch of different options at that layer.When you set up SAP, one of the advantages that something like that has is they have, kind of, pre-built configurations for roughly your business, but whatever behaviors SAP doesn't do, right, say, data warehousing, advanced analytics, regression and projection and stuff like that, maybe that's somewhat outside of the core wheelhouse for SAP, you would expect like, oh okay, I'll bolt on BigQuery. I'll build that stuff over there. We'll stream the data between the two. Yeah, I'm off to the races, but the BigQuery side of the house doesn't have this like bitching menu that says, “You're a retailer, and so you probably want to see these 75 KPIs, and you probably want to chew up your SKUs in exactly this way. And here's some presets that make it so that this is operable out of the box.”So, they are doing the three way combination: Consultancies plus ISVs plus Google products, and doing all the pre-work configuration to go out to a customer and go I know what you probably just want. Why don't I just give you the whole thing so that it does the stuff that you want? That I think—if that's the very first one, this little triangle between SAP, and Big Query, and a bunch of consultancies like mine, you have to imagine they go a lot further with that a lot faster, right? I mean, what does that look like when they do it with Epic, when they go do it with Go just generally, when they go do it with Apache? I've heard of that software, right? Like, there's no reason not to bundle up what the obvious choices are for a bunch of these combinations.Corey: The idea of moving up the stack and offering full on solutions, that's what customers actually want. “Well, here's a bunch of things you can do to wind up wiring together to build a solution,” is, “Cool. Then I'm going to go hire a company who's already done that is going to sell it to me at a significant markup because I just don't care.” I pay way more to WP Engine than I would to just run WordPress myself on top of AWS or Google Cloud. In fact, it is on Google Cloud, but okay.Miles: You and me both, man. WP Engine is the best. I—Corey: It's great because—Miles: You're welcome. I designed a bunch of the hosting on the back of that.Corey: Oh, yeah. But it's also the—I—well, it costs a little bit more that way. Yeah, but guess what's not—guess what's more expensive than that bill, is my time spent doing the care and feeding of this stuff. I like giving money to experts and making it their problem.Miles: Yeah. I heard it said best, Lego is an incredible business. I love their product, and you can build almost any toy with it. And they have not displaced all other plastic toy makers.Corey: Right.Miles: Some kids just want to buy a little car. [laugh].Corey: Oh, yeah, you can build anything you want out of Lego bricks, which are great, which absolutely explains why they are a reference AWS customer.Miles: Yeah, they're great. But they didn't beat all other toy companies worldwide, and eliminate the rest of that market because they had the better primitive, right? These other solutions are just as valuable, just as interesting, tend to have much bigger markets. Lego is not the largest toy manufacturer in the world. They are not in the top five of toy manufacturers in the world, right?Like, so chasing that thread, and getting all the way down into the spots where I think many of the cloud providers on their own, internally, had been very uncomfortable. Like, you got to go all the way to building this stuff that they need for that division, inside of that company, in that geo, in that industry? That's maybe, like, a little too far afield. I think Google has a natural advantage in its more partner-oriented approach to create these combinations that lower the cost to them and to customers to getting out of that solution quick.Corey: So, getting into the weeds of Google Next, I suppose, rather than a whole bunch of things that don't seem to apply to anyone except the four or five companies that really could use it, what things did Google release that make the lives of people building, you know, web apps better?Miles: This is the one. So, I'm at Amazon, hanging out as a part of the team that built up the infrastructure for the Obama campaign in 2012, and there are a bunch of Googlers there, and we are fighting with databases. We are fighting so hard, in fact, with RDS that I think we are the only ones that [Raju 00:17:51] has ever allowed to SSH into our RDS instances to screw with them.Corey: Until now, with the advent of RDS Custom, meaning that you can actually get in as root; where that hell that lands between RDS and EC2 is ridiculous. I just know that RDS can now run containers.Miles: Yeah. I know how many things we did in there that were good for us, and how many things we did in there that were bad for us. And I have to imagine, this is not a feature that they really ought to let everybody have, myself included. But I will say that what all of the Googlers that I talk to, you know, at the first blush, were I'm the evil Amazon guy in to, sort of, distract them and make them build a system that, you know, was very reliable and ended up winning an election was that they had a better database, and they had Spanner, and they didn't understand why this whole thing wasn't sitting on Spanner. So, we looked, and I read the white paper, and then I got all drooly, and I was like, yes, that is a much better database than everybody else's database, and I don't understand why everybody else isn't on it. Oh, there's that one reason, but you've heard of it: No other software works with it, anywhere in the world, right? It's utterly proprietary to Google. Yes, they were kind—Corey: Oh, you want to migrate it off somewhere else, or a fraction of it? Great. Step one, redo your data architecture.Miles: Yeah, take all of my software everywhere, rewrite every bit of it. And, oh all those commercial applications? Yeah, forget all those, you got, too. Right? It was very much where Google was eight years ago. So, for me, it was immensely meaningful to see the launch at Next where they described what they are building—and have now built; we have alpha access to it—a Postgres layer for Spanner.Corey: Is that effectively you have to treat it as Postgres at all times, or is it multimodal access?Miles: You can get in and tickle it like Spanner, if you want to tickle it like Spanner. And in reality, Spanner is ANSI SQL compliant; you're still writing SQL, you just don't have to talk to it like a REST endpoint, or a GRPC endpoint, or something; you can, you know, have like a—Corey: So, similar to Azure's Cosmos DB, on some level, except for the part where you can apparently look at other customers' data in that thing?Miles: [laugh]. Exactly. Yeah, you will not have a sweeping discovery of incredible security violations in the structure Spanner, in that it is the control system that Google uses to place every ad, and so it does not suck. You can't put a trillion-dollar business on top of a database and not have it be safe. That's kind of a thing.Corey: The thing that I find is the most interesting area of tech right now is there's been this rise of distributed databases. Yugabyte—or You-ji-byte—Pla-netScale—or PlanetScale, depending on how you pronounce these things.Miles: [laugh]. Yeah, why, why is G such an adversarial consonant? I don't understand why we've all gotten to this place.Corey: Oh, yeah. But at the same time, it's—so you take a look at all these—and they all are speaking Postgres; it is pretty clear that ‘Postgres-squeal' is the thing that is taking over the world as far as databases go. If I were building something from scratch that used—Miles: For folks in the back, that's PostgreSQL, for the rest of us, it's okay, it's going to be, all right.Corey: Same difference. But yeah, it's the thing that is eating the world. Although recently, I've got to say, MongoDB is absolutely stepping up in a bunch of really interesting ways.Miles: I mean, I think the 4.0 release, I'm the guy who wrote the MongoDB on AWS Best Practices white paper, and I would grab a lot of customer's and—Corey: They have to change it since then of, step one: Do not use DocumentDB; if you want to use Mongo, use Mongo.Miles: Yeah, that's right. No, there were a lot of customers I was on the phone with where Mongo had summarily vaporized their data, and I think they have made huge strides in structural reliability over the course of—you know, especially this 4.0 launch, but the last couple of years, for sure.Corey: And with all the people they've been hiring from AWS, it's one of those, “Well, we'll look at this now who's losing important things from production?”Miles: [laugh]. Right? So, maybe there's only actually five humans who know how to do operations, and we just sort of keep moving around these different companies.Corey: That's sort of my assumption on these things. But Postgres, for those who are not looking to depart from the relational model, is eating the world. And—Miles: There's this, like, basic emotional thing. My buddy Martin, who set up MySQL, and took it public, and then promptly got it gobbled up by the Oracle people, like, there was a bet there that said, hey, there's going to be a real open database, and then squish, like, the man came and got it. And so like, if you're going to be an independent, open-source software developer, I think you're probably not pushing your pull requests to our friends at Oracle, that seems weird. So instead, I think Postgres has gobbled up the best minds on that stuff.And it works. It's reliable, it's consistent, and it's functional in all these different, sort of, reapplications and subdivisions, right? I mean, you have to sort of squint real hard, but down there in the guts of Redshift, that's Postgres, right? Like, there's Postgres behind all sorts of stuff. So, as an interface layer, I'm not as interested about how it manages to be successful at bossing around hardware and getting people the zeros and ones that they ask for back in a timely manner.I'm interested in it as a compatibility standard, right? If I have software that says, “I need to have Postgres under here and then it all will work,” that creates this layer of interop that a bunch of other products can use. So, folks like PlanetScale, and Yugabyte can say, “No, no, no, it's cool. We talk Postgres; that'll make it so your application works right. You can bring a SQL alchemy and plug it into this, or whatever your interface layer looks like.”That's the spot where, if I can trade what is a fairly limited global distribution, global transactional management on literally ridiculously unlimited scalability and zero operations, I can handle the hard parts of running a database over to somebody else, but I get my layer, and my software talks to it, I think that's a huge step.Corey: This episode is sponsored in part by my friends at Cloud Academy. Something special just for you folks. If you missed their offer on Black Friday or Cyber Monday or whatever day of the week doing sales it is—good news! They've opened up their Black Friday promotion for a very limited time. Same deal, $100 off a yearly plan, $249 a year for the highest quality cloud and tech skills content. Nobody else can get this because they have a assured me this not going to last for much longer. Go to CloudAcademy.com, hit the "start free trial" button on the homepage, and use the Promo code cloud at checkout. That's c-l-o-u-d, like loud, what I am, with a “C” in front of it. It's a free trial, so you'll get 7 days to try it out to make sure it's really a good fit for you, nothing to lose except your ignorance about cloud. My thanks again for sponsoring my ridiculous nonsense.Corey: I think that there's a strong movement toward building out on something like this. If it works, just because—well, I'm not multiregion today, but I can easily see a world in which I'd want to be. So, great. How do you approach the decision between—once this comes out of alpha; let's be clear. Let's turn this into something that actually ships, and no, Google that does not mean slapping a beta label on it for five years is the answer here; you actually have to stand behind this thing—but once it goes GA—Miles: GA is a good thing.Corey: Yeah. How do you decide between using that, or PlanetScale? Or Yugabyte?Miles: Or Cockroach or or SingleStore, right? I mean, there's a zillion of them that sit in this market. I think the core of the decision making for me is in every team you're looking at what skills do you bring to bear and what problem that you're off to go solve for customers? Do the nuances of these products make it easier to solve? So, I think there are some products that the nature of what you're building isn't all that dependent on one part of the application talking to another one, or an event happening someplace else mattering to an event over here. But some applications, that's, like, utterly critical, like, totally, totally necessary.So, we worked with a bunch of like Forex exchange trading desks that literally turn off 12 hours out of the day because they can only keep it consistent in one geographical location right near the main exchanges in New York. So, that's a place where I go, “Would you like to trade all day?” And they go, “Yes, but I can't because databases.” So, “Awesome. Let's call the folks on the Spanner side. They can solve that problem.”I go, “Would you like to trade all day and rewrite all your software?” And they go, “No.” And I go, “Oh, okay. What about trade all day, but not rewrite all your software?” There we go. Now, we've got a solution to that kind of problem.So like, we built this crazy game, like, totally other end of the ecosystem with the Dragon Ball Z people, hysterical; your like—you literally play like Rock, Paper, Scissors with your phone, and if you get a rock, I throw a fireball, and you get a paper, then I throw a punch, and we figure out who wins. But they can play these games like Europe versus Japan, thousands of people on each side, real-time, and it works.Corey: So, let's be clear, I have lobbied a consistent criticism at Google for a while now, which is the Google Cloud global control plane. So, you wind up with things like global service outages from time to time, you wind up with this thing is now broken for everyone everywhere. And that, for a lot of these use cases, is a problem. And I said that AWS's approach to regional isolation is the right way to do it. And I do stand by that assessment, except for the part where it turns out there's a lot of control plane stuff that winds up single tracking through us-east-1, as we learned in the great us-east-1 outage of 2021.Miles: Yeah, when I see customers move from data center to AWS, what they expect is a higher count of outages that lasts less time. That's the trade off, right? There's going to be more weird spurious stuff, and maybe—maybe—if they're lucky, that outage will be over there at some other region they're not using. I see almost exactly the same promise happening to folks that come from AWS—and in particular from Azure—over onto GCP, which is, there will be probably a higher frequency of outages at a per product level, right? So, like sometimes, like, some weird product takes a screw sideways, where there is structural interdependence between quite a few products—we actually published a whole internal structural map of like, you know, it turns out that Cloud SQL runs on top of GCE not on GKE, so you can expect if GKE goes sideways, Cloud SQL is probably not going to go sideways; the two aren't dependent on each other.Corey: You take the status page and Amazon FreeRTOS in a region is having an outage today or something like that. You're like, “Oh, no. That's terrible. First, let me go look up what the hell that is.” And I'm not using it? Absolutely not. Great. As hyperscalers, well, hyperscale, they're always things that are broken in different ways, in different locations, and if you had a truly accurate status page, it would all be red all the time, or varying shades of red, which is not helpful. So, I understand the challenge there, but very often, it's a partition that is you are not exposed to, or the way that you've architected things, ideally, means it doesn't really matter. And that is a good thing. So, raw outage counts don't solve that. I also maintain that if I were to run in a single region of AWS or even a single AZ, in all likelihood, I will have a significantly better uptime across the board than I would if I ran it myself. Because—Miles: Oh, for sure.Corey: —it is—Miles: For sure they're way better at ops than you are. Me, right?Corey: Of course.Miles: Right? Like, ridiculous.Corey: And they got that way, by learning. Like, I think in 2022, it is unlikely that there's going to be an outage in an AWS availability zone by someone tripping over a power cable, whereas I have actually done that. So, there's a—to be clear in a data center, not an AWS facility; that would not have flown. So, there is the better idea of of going in that direction. But the things like Route 53 is control plane single-tracking through the us-east-1, if you can't make DNS changes in an outage scenario, you may as well not have a DR plan, for most use cases.Miles: To be really clear, it was a part of the internal documentation on the AWS side that we would share with customers to be absolutely explicit with them. It's not just that there are mistakes and accidents which we try to limit to AZs, but no, go further, that we may intentionally cause outages to AZs if that's what allows us to keep broader service health higher, right? They are not just a blast radius because you, oops, pulled the pin on the grenade; they can actually intentionally step on the off button. And that's different than the way Google operates. They think of each of the AZs, and each of the regions, and the global system as an always-on, all the time environment, and they do not have systems where one gets, sort of, sacrificed for the benefit of the rest, right, or they will intentionally plan to take a system offline.There is no planned downtime in the SLA, where the SLAs from my friends at Amazon and Azure are explicit to, if they choose to, they decide to take it offline, they can. Now, that's—I don't know, I kind of want the contract that has the other thing where you don't get that.Corey: I don't know what the right answer is for a lot of these things. I think multi-cloud is dumb. I think that the idea of having this workload that you're going to seamlessly deploy to two providers in case of an outage, well guess what? The orchestration between those two providers is going to cause you more outages than you would take just sticking on one. And in most cases, unless you are able to have complete duplication of not just functionality but capacity between those two, congratulations, you've now just doubled your number of single points of failure, you made the problem actively worse and more expensive. Good job.Miles: I wrote an article about this, and I think it's important to differentiate between dumb and terrifyingly shockingly expensive, right? So, I have a bunch of customers who I would characterize as rich, as like, shockingly rich, as producing businesses that have 80-plus percent gross margins. And for them, the costs associated with this stuff are utterly rational, and they take on that work, and they are seeing benefits, or they wouldn't be doing it.Corey: Of course.Miles: So, I think their trajectory in technology—you know, this is a quote from a Google engineer—it's just like, “Oh, you want to see what the future looks like? Hang out with rich people.” I went into houses when I was a little kid that had whole-home automation. I couldn't afford them; my mom was cleaning house there, but now my house, I can use my phone to turn on the lights. Like—Corey: You know, unless us-east-1 is having a problem.Miles: Hey, and then no Roomba for you, right? Like utterly offline. So—Corey: Roomba has now failed to room.Miles: Conveniently, my lights are Philips Hue, and that's on Google, so that baby works. But it is definitely a spot where the barrier of entry and the level of complexity required is going down over time. And it is definitely a horrible choice for 99% of the companies that are out there right now. But next year, it'll be 98. And the year after that, it'll probably be 97. [laugh].And if I go inside of Amazon's data centers, there's not one manufacturer of hard drives, there's a bunch. So, that got so easy that now, of course you use more than one; you got to do—that's just like, sort of, a natural thing, right? These technologies, it'll move over time. We just aren't there yet for the vast, vast majority of workloads.Corey: I hope that in the future, this stuff becomes easier, but data transfer fees are going to continue to be a concern—Miles: Just—[makes explosion noise]—Corey: Oh, man—Miles: —like, right in the face.Corey: —especially with the Cambrian explosion of data because the data science folks have successfully convinced the entire industry that there's value in those mode balancer logs in 2012. Okay, great. We're never deleting anything again, but now you've got to replicate all of that stuff because no one has a decent handle on lifecycle management and won't for the foreseeable future. Great, to multiple providers so that you can work on these things? Like, that is incredibly expensive.Miles: Yeah. Cool tech, from this announcement at Next that I think is very applicable, and recognized the level of like, utter technical mastery—and security mastery to our earlier conversation—that something like this requires, the product is called BigQuery Omni, what Omni allows you to do is go into the Google Cloud Console, go to BigQuery, say I want to do analysis on this data that's in S3, or in Azure Blob Storage, Google will spin up an account on your behalf on Amazon and Azure, and run the compute there for you, bring the result back. So, just transfer the answers, not the raw data that you just scanned, and no work on your part, no management, no crapola. So, there's like—that's multi-cloud. If I've got—I can do a join between a bunch of rows that are in real BigQuery over on GCP side and rows that are over there in S3. The cross-eyedness of getting something like that to work is mind blowing.Corey: To give this a little more context, just because it gets difficult to reason about these things, I can either have data that is in a private subnet in AWS that traverses their horribly priced Managed NAT Gateways, and then goes out to the internet and sent there once, for the same cost as I could take that same data and store it in S3 in their standard tier for just shy of six full months. That's a little imbalanced, if we're being direct here. And then when you add in things like intelligent tiering and archive access classes, that becomes something that… there's no contest there. It's, if we're talking about things that are now approaching exabyte scale, that's one of those, “Yeah, do you want us to pay by a credit card?”—get serious. You can't at that scale anyway—“Invoice billing, or do we just, like, drive a dump truck full of gold bricks and drop them off in Seattle?”Miles: Sure. Same trajectory, on the multi-cloud thing. So, like a partner of ours, PacketFabric, you know, if you're a big, big company, you go out and you call Amazon and you buy 100 gigabit interconnect on—I think they call theirs Direct Connect, and then you hook that up to the Google one that's called Dedicated Interconnect. And voila, the price goes from twelve cents a gig down to two cents a gig; everybody's much happier. But Jesus, you pay the upfront for that, you got to set the thing up, it takes days to get deployed, and now you're culpable for the whole pipe if you don't use it up. Like, there are charges that are static over the course of the month.So, PacketFabric just buys one of those and lets you rent a slice of it you need. And I think they've got an incredible product. We're working with them on a whole bunch of different projects. But I also expect—like, there's no reason the cloud providers shouldn't be working hard to vend that kind of solution over time. If a hundred gigabit is where it is now, what does it look like when I get to ten gigabit? When I get to one gigabit? When I get to half gigabit? You know, utility price that for us so that we get to rational pricing.I think there's a bunch of baked-in business and cost logic that is a part of the pricing system, where egress is the source of all of the funding at Amazon for internal networking, right? I don't pay anything for the switches that connect to this machine to that machine, in region. It's not like those things are cheap or free; they have to be there. But the funding for that comes from egress. So, I think you're going to end up seeing a different model where you'll maybe have different approaches to egress pricing, but you'll be paying like an in-system networking fee.And I think folks will be surprised at how big that fee likely is because of the cost of the level of networking infrastructure that the providers deploy, right? I mean, like, I don't know, if you've gone and tried to buy a 40 port, 40 gig switch anytime recently. It's not like they're those little, you know, blue Netgear ones for 90 bucks.Corey: Exactly. It becomes this, [sigh] I don't know, I keep thinking that's not the right answer, but part of it also is like, well, you know, for things that I really need local and don't want to worry about if the internet's melting today, I kind of just want to get, like, some kind of Raspberry Pi shoved under my desk for some reason.Miles: Yeah. I think there is a lot where as more and more businesses bet bigger and bigger slices of the farm on this kind of thing, I think it's Jassy's line that you're, you know, the fat in the margin in your business is my opportunity. Like, there's a whole ecosystem of partners and competitors that are hunting all of those opportunities. I think that pressure can only be good for customers.Corey: Miles, thank you for taking the time to speak with me. If people want to learn more about you, what you're up to, your bad opinions, your ridiculous company, et cetera—Miles: [laugh].Corey: —where can they find you?Miles: Well, it's really easy to spell: SADA.com, S-A-D-A dot com. I'm Miles Ward, it's @milesward on Twitter; you don't have to do too hard of a math. It's miles@sada.com, if you want to send me an email. It's real straightforward. So, eager to reach out, happy to help. We've got a bunch of engineers that like helping people move from Amazon to GCP. So, let us know.Corey: Excellent. And we will, of course, put links to this in the [show notes 00:37:17] because that's how we roll.Miles: Yay.Corey: Thanks so much for being so generous with your time, and I look forward to seeing what comes out next year from these various cloud companies.Miles: Oh, I know some of them already, and they're good. Oh, they're super good.Corey: This is why I don't do predictions because like, the stuff that I know about, like, for example, I was I was aware of the Graviton 3 was coming—Miles: Sure.Corey: —and it turns out that if your—guess what's going to come up and you don't name Graviton 3, it's like, “Are you simple? Did you not see that one coming?” It's like—or if I don't know it's coming and I make that guess—which is not the hardest thing in the world—someone would think I knew and leaked. There's no benefit to doing predictions.Miles: No. It's very tough, very happy to do predictions in private, for customers. [laugh].Corey: Absolutely. Thanks again for your time. I appreciate it.Miles: Cheers.Corey: Myles Ward, CTO at SADA. I'm Cloud Economist Corey Quinn, and this is Screaming in the Cloud. If you've enjoyed this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice, whereas if you've hated this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice and be very angry in your opinion when you write that obnoxious comment, but then it's going to get lost because it's using MySQL instead of Postgres.Corey: If your AWS bill keeps rising and your blood pressure is doing the same, then you need The Duckbill Group. We help companies fix their AWS bill by making it smaller and less horrifying. The Duckbill Group works for you, not AWS. We tailor recommendations to your business and we get to the point. Visit duckbillgroup.com to get started.Announcer: This has been a HumblePod production. Stay humble.

About RichardHe's also an instructor at Pluralsight, a frequent public speaker, and the author of multiple books on software design and development. Richard maintains a regularly updated blog (seroter.com) on topics of architecture and solution design and can be found on Twitter as @rseroter. Links: Twitter: https://twitter.com/rseroter LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/seroter Seroter.com: https://seroter.com TranscriptAnnouncer: Hello, and welcome to Screaming in the Cloud with your host, Chief Cloud Economist at The Duckbill Group, Corey Quinn. This weekly show features conversations with people doing interesting work in the world of cloud, thoughtful commentary on the state of the technical world, and ridiculous titles for which Corey refuses to apologize. This is Screaming in the Cloud.Corey: This episode is sponsored in part by our friends at Vultr. Spelled V-U-L-T-R because they're all about helping save money, including on things like, you know, vowels. So, what they do is they are a cloud provider that provides surprisingly high performance cloud compute at a price that—while sure they claim its better than AWS pricing—and when they say that they mean it is less money. Sure, I don't dispute that but what I find interesting is that it's predictable. They tell you in advance on a monthly basis what it's going to going to cost. They have a bunch of advanced networking features. They have nineteen global locations and scale things elastically. Not to be confused with openly, because apparently elastic and open can mean the same thing sometimes. They have had over a million users. Deployments take less that sixty seconds across twelve pre-selected operating systems. Or, if you're one of those nutters like me, you can bring your own ISO and install basically any operating system you want. Starting with pricing as low as $2.50 a month for Vultr cloud compute they have plans for developers and businesses of all sizes, except maybe Amazon, who stubbornly insists on having something to scale all on their own. Try Vultr today for free by visiting: vultr.com/screaming, and you'll receive a $100 in credit. Thats v-u-l-t-r.com slash screaming.Corey: You know how git works right?Announcer: Sorta, kinda, not really Please ask someone else!Corey: Thats all of us. Git is how we build things, and Netlify is one of the best way I've found to build those things quickly for the web. Netlify's git based workflows mean you don't have to play slap and tickle with integrating arcane non-sense and web hooks, which are themselves about as well understood as git. Give them a try and see what folks ranging from my fake Twitter for pets startup, to global fortune 2000 companies are raving about. If you end up talking to them, because you don't have to, they get why self service is important—but if you do, be sure to tell them that I sent you and watch all of the blood drain from their faces instantly. You can find them in the AWS marketplace or at www.netlify.com. N-E-T-L-I-F-Y.comCorey: Welcome to Screaming in the Cloud. I'm Corey Quinn. Once upon a time back in the days of VH1, which was like MTV except it played music videos, would have a show that was, “Where are they now?” Looking at former celebrities. I will not use the term washed up because that's going to be insulting to my guest.Richard Seroter is a returning guest here on Screaming in the Cloud. We spoke to him a year ago when he was brand new in his role at Google as director of outbound product management. At that point, he basically had stars in his eyes and was aspirational around everything he wanted to achieve. And now it's a year later and he has clearly failed because it's Google. So, outbound products are clearly the things that they are going to be deprecating, and in the past year, I am unaware of a single Google Cloud product that has been outright deprecated. Richard, thank you for joining me, and what do you have to say for yourself?Richard: Yeah, “Where are they now?” I feel like I'm the Leif Garrett of cloud here, joining you. So yes, I'm still here, I'm still alive. A little grayer after twelve months in, but happy to be here chatting cloud, chatting whatever else with you.Corey: I joke a little bit about, “Oh, Google winds up killing things.” And let's be clear, your consumer division which, you know, Google is prone to that. And understanding a company's org chart is a challenge. A year or two ago, I was of the opinion that I didn't need to know anything about Google Cloud because it would probably be deprecated before I really had to know about it. My opinion has evolved considerably based upon a number of things I'm seeing from Google.Let's be clear here, I'm not saying this to shine you on or anything like that; it's instead that I've seen some interesting things coming out of Google that I consider to be the right moves. One example of that is publicly signing multiple ten-year deals with very large, serious institutions like Deutsche Bank, and others. Okay, you don't generally sign contracts with companies of that scale and intend not to live up to them. You're hiring Forrest Brazeal as your head of content for Google Cloud, which is not something you should do lightly, and not something that is a short-term play in any respect. And the customer experience has continued to improve; Google Cloud products have not gotten worse, and I'm seeing in my own customer conversations that discussions about Google Cloud have become significantly less dismissive than they were over the past year. Please go ahead and claim credit for all of that.Richard: Yeah. I mean, the changes a year ago when I joined. So, Thomas Kurian has made a huge impact on some of that. You saw us launch the enterprise APIs thing a while back, which was, “Hey, here's, for the most part, every one of our products that has a fixed API. We're not going to deprecate it without a year's notice, whatever it is. We're not going to make certain types of changes.” Maybe that feels like, “Well, you should have had that before.” All right, all we can do is improve things moving forward. So, I think that was a good change.Corey: Oh, I agree. I think that was a great thing to do. You had something like 80-some-odd percent coverage of Google Cloud services, and great, that's going to only increase with time, I can imagine. But I got a little pushback from a few Googlers for not being more congratulatory towards them for doing this, and look, it's a great thing. Don't get me wrong, but you don't exactly get a whole lot of bonus points and kudos and positive press coverage—not that I'm press—for doing the thing you should have been doing [laugh] all along.It's, “This is great. This is necessary.” And it demonstrates a clear awareness that there was—rightly or wrongly—a perception issue around the platform's longevity and that you've gone significantly out of your way to wind up addressing that in ways that go far beyond just yelling at people on Twitter they don't understand the true philosophy of Google Cloud, which is the right thing to do.Richard: Yeah, I mean, as you mentioned, look, the consumer side is very experimental in a lot of cases. I still mourn Google Reader. Like, those things don't matter—Corey: As do we all.Richard: Of course. So, I get that. Google Cloud—and of course we have the same cultural thing, but at the same time, there's a lifecycle management that's different in Google Cloud. We do not deprecate products that much. You know, enterprises make decade-long bets. I can't be swap—changing databases or just turning off messaging things. Instead, we're building a core set of things and making them better.So, I like the fact that we have a pretty stable portfolio that keeps getting a little bit bigger. Not crazy bigger; I like that we're not just throwing everything out there saying, “Rock on.” We have some opinions. But I think that's been a positive trend, customers seem to like that we're making these long-term bets. We're not going anywhere for a long time and our earnings quarter after quarter shows it—boy, this will actually be a profitable business pretty soon.Corey: Oh, yeah. People love to make hay, and by people, I stretch the term slightly and talk about, “Investment analysts say that Google Cloud is terrible because at your last annual report you're losing something like $5 billion a year on Google Cloud.” And everyone looked at me strangely, when I said, “No, this is terrific. What that means is that they're investing in the platform.” Because let's be clear, folks at Google tend to be intelligent, by and large, or at least intelligent enough that they're not going to start selling cloud services for less than it costs to run them.So yeah, it is clearly an investment in the platform and growth of it. The only way it should be turning a profit at this point is if there's no more room to invest that money back into growing the platform, given your market position. I think that's a terrific thing, and I'm not worried at all about it losing money. I don't think anyone should be.Richard: Yeah, I mean, strategically, look, this doesn't have to be the same type of moneymaker that even some other clouds have to be to their portfolio. Look, this is an important part, but you look at those ten-year deals that we've been signing: when you look at Univision, that's a YouTube partnership; you look at Ford that had to do with Android Auto; you look at these others, this is where us being also a consumer and enterprise SaaS company is interesting because this isn't just who's cranking out the best IaaS. I mean, that can be boring stuff over time. It's like, who's actually doing the stuff that maybe makes a traditional company more interesting because they partner on some of those SaaS services. So, those are the sorts of deals and those sorts of arrangements where cloud needs to be awesome, and successful, and make money, doesn't need to be the biggest revenue generator for Google.Corey: So, when we first started talking, you were newly minted as a director of outbound product management. And now, you are not the only one, there are apparently 60 of you there, and I'm no closer to understanding what the role encompasses. What is your remit? Where do you start? Where do you stop?Richard: Yeah, that's a good question. So, there's outbound product management teams, mostly associated with the portfolio area. So network, storage, AI, analytics, database, compute, application modernization-y sort of stuff—which is what I cover—containers, dev tools, serverless. Basically, I am helping make sure the market understands the product and the product understands the market. And not to be totally glib, but a lot of that is, we are amplification.I'm amplifying product out to market, analysts, field people, partners: “Do you understand this thing? Can I help you put this in context?” But then really importantly, I'm trying to help make sure we're also amplifying the market back to our product teams. You're getting real customer feedback: “Do you know what that analyst thinks? Have you heard what happened in the competitive space?”And so sometimes companies seem to miss that, and PMs poke their head up when I'm about to plan a product or I'm about to launch a product because I need some feedback. But keeping that constant pulse on the market, on customers, on what's going on, I think that can be a secret weapon. I'm not sure everybody does that.Corey: Spending as much time as I do on bills, admittedly AWS bills, but this is a pattern that tends to unfold across every provider I've seen. The keynotes are chock-full of awesome managed service announcements, things that are effectively turnkey at further up the stack levels, but the bills invariably look a lot more like, yeah, we spend a bit of money on that and then we run 10,000 virtual instances in a particular environment and we just treat it like it's an extension of our data center. And that's not exciting; that's not fun, quote-unquote, but it's absolutely what customers are doing and I'm not going to sit here and tell them that they're wrong for doing it. That is the hallmark of a terrible consultant of, “I don't understand why you're doing what you're doing, so it must be foolish.” How about you stop and gain some context into why customers do the things that they do?Richard: No, I send around a goofy newsletter every week to a thousand or two people, just on things I'm learning from the field, from customers, trying to make sure we're just thinking bigger. A couple of weeks ago, I wrote an idea about modernization is awesome, and I love when people upgrade their software. By the way, most people migration is a heck of a lot easier than if I can just get this into your cloud, yeah love that; that's not the most interesting thing, to move VMs around, but most people in their budget, don't have time to rewrite every Java app to go. Everybody's not changing .NET framework to .NET core.Like, who do I think everybody is? No, I just need to try to get some incremental value first. Yes, then hopefully I'll swap out my self-managed SQL database for a Spanner or a managed service. Of course, I want all of that, but this idea that I can turn my line of business loan processing app into a thousand functions overnight is goofy. So, how are we instead thinking more pragmatically about migration, and then modernizing some of it? But even that sort of mindset, look, Google thinks about innovation modernization first. So, also just trying to help us take a step back and go, “Gosh, what is the normal path? Well, it's a lot of migration first, some modernization, and then there's some steady-state work there.”Corey: One of the things that surprised me the most about Google Cloud in the market, across the board, has been the enthusiastic uptake for enterprise workloads. And by enterprise workloads, I'm talking about things like SAP HANA is doing a whole bunch of deployments there; we're talking Big Iron-style enterprise-y things that, let's be honest, countervene most of the philosophy that Google has always held and espoused publicly, at least on conference stages, about how software should be built. And I thought that would cut against them and make it very difficult for you folks to gain headway in that market and I could not have been more wrong. I'm talking to large enterprises who are enthusiastically talking about Google Cloud. I've got a level with you, compared to a year or two ago, I don't recognize the place.Richard: Mmm. I mean, some of that, honestly, in the conversations I have, and whatever I do a handful of customer calls every week, I think folks still want something familiar, but you're looking for maybe a further step on some of it. And that means, like, yes, is everybody going to offer VMs? Yeah, of course. Is everyone going to have MySQL? Obviously.But if I'm an enterprise and I'm doing these generational bets, can I cheat a little bit, and maybe if I partner with a more of an innovation partner versus maybe just the easy next step, am I buying some more relevance for the long-term? So, am I getting into environment that has some really cool native zero-trust stuff? Am I getting into environment with global backend services and I'm not just stitching together a bunch of regional stuff? How can I cheat by using a more innovation vendor versus just lifting and shifting to what feels like hosted software in another cloud? I'm seeing more of that because these migrations are tough; nobody should be just randomly switching clouds. That's insane.So, can I make, maybe, one of these big bets with somebody who feels like they might actually even improve my business as a whole because I can work with Google Pay and improve how I do mobile payments, or I could do something here with Android? Or, heck, all my developers are using Angular and Flutter; aren't I going to get some benefit from working with Google? So, we're seeing that, kind of, add-on effect of, “Maybe this is a place not just to host my VMs, but to take a generational leap.”Corey: And I think that you're positioning yourselves in a way to do it. Again, talk about things that you wouldn't have expected to come out of Google of all places, but your console experience has been first-rate and has been for a while. The developer experience is awesome; I don't need to learn the intricacies of 12 different services for what I'm trying to do just in order to get something basic up and running. I can stop all the random little billing things in my experimental project with a single click, which that admittedly has a confirm, which you kind of want. But it lets you reason about these things.It lets you get started building something, and there's a consistency and cohesiveness to the console that, again, I am not a graphic designer, by any stretch of the imagination. My most commonly used user interface is a green-screen shell prompt, and then I'm using Vim to wind up writing something horrifying, ideally in Python, but more often in YAML. And that has been my experience, but just clicking around the console, it's clear that there was significant thought put into the design, the user experience, and the way of approaching folks who are starting to look very different, from a user persona perspective.Richard: I can—I mean, I love our user research team; they're actually fun to hang out with and watch what they do, but you have to remember, Google as a company, I don't know, cloud is the first thing we had to sell. Did have to sell Gmail. I remember 15 years ago, people were waiting for invites. And who buys Maps or who buys YouTube? For the most part, we've had to build things that were naturally interesting and easy-to-use because otherwise, you would just switch to anything else because everything was free.So, some of that does infuse Google Cloud, “Let's just make this really easy to use. And let's just make sure that, maybe, you don't hate yourself when you're done jumping into a shell from the middle of the console.” It's like, that should be really easy to do—or upgrade a database, or make changes to things. So, I think some of the things we've learned from the consumer good side, have made their way to how we think of UX and design because maybe this stuff shouldn't be terrible.Corey: There's a trope going around, where I wound up talking about the next million cloud customers. And I'm going to have to write a sequel to it because it turns out that I've made a fundamental error, in that I've accepted the narrative that all of the large cloud vendors are pushing, to the point where I heard from so many folks I just accepted it unthinkingly and uncritically, and that's not what I should be doing. And we'll get to what I was wrong about in a minute, but the thinking goes that the next big growth area is large enterprises, specifically around corporate IT. And those are folks who are used to managing things in a GUI environment—which is fine—and clicking around in web apps. Now, it's easy to sit here on our high horse and say, “Oh, you should learn to write code,” or YAML, which is basically code. Cool.As an individual, I agree, someone should because as soon as they do that, they are now able to go out and take that skill to a more lucrative role. The company then has to backfill someone into the role that they just got promoted out of, and the company still has that dependency. And you cannot succeed in that market with a philosophy of, “Oh, you built something in the console. Now, throw it away and do it right.” Because that is maddening to that user persona. Rightfully so.I'm not that user persona and I find it maddening when I have to keep tripping over that particular thing. How did that come to be, from your perspective? First, do you think that is where the next million cloud customers come from? And have I adequately captured that user persona, or am I completely often the weeds somewhere?Richard: I mean, I shared your post internally when that one came out because that resonated with me of how we were thinking about it. Again, it's easy to think about the cloud-native operators, it's Spotify doing something amazing, or this team at Twitter doing something, or whatever. And it's not even to be disparaging. Like, look, I spent five years in enterprise IT and I was surrounded by operators who had to run dozen different systems; they weren't dedicated to just this thing or that. So, what are the tools that make my life easy?A lot of software just comes with UIs for quick install and upgrades, and how does that logic translate to this cloud world? I think that stuff does matter. How are you meeting these people a little better where they are? I think the hard part that we will always have in every cloud provider is—I think you've said this in different forums, but how do I not sometimes rub the data center on my cloud or vice versa? I also don't want to change the experience so much where I degrade it over the long term, I've actually somehow done something worse.So, can I meet those people where they are? Can we pull some of those experiences in, but not accidentally do something that kind of messes up the cloud experience? I mean, that's a fine line to walk. Does that make sense to you? Do you see where there's a… I don't know, you could accidentally cater to a certain audience too much, and change the experience for the worse?Corey: Yes, and no. My philosophy on it is that you have to meet customers where they are, but only to a point. At some point, what they're asking for becomes actively harmful or disadvantageous to wind up providing for them. “I want you to run my data center for me,” is on some level what some cloud environments look like, and I'm not going to sit here and tell people they're inherently wrong for that. Their big reason for moving to the cloud was because they keep screwing up replacing failed hard drives in their data center, so we're going to put it in the cloud.Is it more expensive that way? Well, sure in terms of actual cash outlay, it almost certainly is, but they're also not going down every month when a drive fails, so once the value of that? It's a capability story. That becomes interesting to me, and I think that trying to sit here in isolation, and say that, “Oh, this application is not how we would build it at Google.” And it's, “Yeah, you're Google. They are insert an entire universe of different industries that look nothing whatsoever like Google.” The constraints are different, the resources are different, and—Richard: Sure.Corey: —their approach to problem-solving are different. When you built out Google, and even when you're building out Google Cloud, look at some of the oldest craftiest stuff you have in your entire all of Google environment, and then remember that there are companies out there that are hundreds of years old. It's a different order of magnitude as far as era, as far as understanding of what's in the environment, and that's okay. It's a very broad and very diverse world.Richard: Yeah. I mean, that's, again, why I've been thinking more about migration than even some of the modernization piece. Should you bring your network architecture from on-prem to the cloud? I mean, I think most cases, no. But I understand sometimes that edge firewall, internal trust model you had on-prem, okay, trying to replicate that.So, yeah, like you say, I want to meet people where they are. Can we at least find some strategic leverage points to upgrade aspects of things as you get to a cloud, to save you from yourself in some places because all of a sudden, you have ten regions and you only had one data center before. So, many more rooms for mistakes. Where are the right guardrails? We're probably more opinionated than others at Google Cloud.I don't really apologize for that completely, but I understand. I mean, I think we've loosened up a lot more than maybe people [laugh] would have thought a few years ago, from being hyper-opinionated on how you run software.Corey: I will actually push back a bit on the idea that you should not replicate your on-premises data center in your cloud environment. Sure, are there more optimal ways to do it that are arguably more secure? Absolutely. But a common failure mode in moving from data center to cloud is, “All right, we're going to start embracing this entirely new cloud networking paradigm.” And it is confusing, and your team that knows how the data center network works really well are suddenly in way over their heads, and they're inadvertently exposing things they don't intend to or causing issues.The hard part is always people, not technology. So, when I glance at an environment and see things like that, perfect example, are there more optimal ways to do it? Oh, from a technology perspective, absolutely. How many engineers are working on that? What's their skill set? What's their position on all this? What else are they working on? Because you're never going to find a team of folks who are world-class experts in every cloud? It doesn't work that way.Richard: No doubt. No doubt, you're right. There's areas where we have to at least have something that's going to look similar, let you replicate aspects of it. I think it's—it'll just be interesting to watch, and I have enough conversations with customers who do ask, “Hey, where are the places we should make certain changes as we evolve?” And maybe they are tactical, and they're not going to be the big strategic redesign their entire thing. But it is good to see people not just trying to shovel everything from one place to the next.Corey: This episode is sponsored in part by something new. Cloud Academy is a training platform built on two primary goals. Having the highest quality content in tech and cloud skills, and building a good community the is rich and full of IT and engineering professionals. You wouldn't think those things go together, but sometimes they do. Its both useful for individuals and large enterprises, but here's what makes it new. I don't use that term lightly. Cloud Academy invites you to showcase just how good your AWS skills are. For the next four weeks you'll have a chance to prove yourself. Compete in four unique lab challenges, where they'll be awarding more than $2000 in cash and prizes. I'm not kidding, first place is a thousand bucks. Pre-register for the first challenge now, one that I picked out myself on Amazon SNS image resizing, by visiting cloudacademy.com/corey. C-O-R-E-Y. That's cloudacademy.com/corey. We're gonna have some fun with this one!Corey: Now, to follow up on what I was saying earlier, what I think I've gotten wrong by accepting the industry talking points on is that the next million cloud customers are big enterprises moving from data centers into the cloud. There's money there, don't get me wrong, but there is a larger opportunity in empowering the creation of companies in your environment. And this is what certain large competitors of yours get very wrong, where it's we're going to launch a whole bunch of different services that you get to build yourself from popsicle sticks. Great. That is not useful.But companies that are trying to do interesting things, or people who want to found companies to do interesting things, want something that looks a lot more turnkey. If you are going to be building cloud offerings, that for example, are terrific building blocks for SaaS companies, then it behooves you to do actual investments, rather than just a generic credit offer, into spurring the creation of those types of companies. If you want to build a company that does payroll systems, in a SaaS, cloud way, “Partner with us. Do it here. We will give you a bunch of credits. We will introduce you to your first ten prospective customers.”And effectively actually invest in a company success, as opposed to pitch-deck invest, which is, “Yeah, we'll give you some discounting and some credits, and that's our quote-unquote, ‘investment.'” actually be there with them as a partner. And that's going to take years for folks to wrap their heads around, but I feel like that is the opportunity that is significantly larger, even than the embedded existing IT space because rather than fighting each other for slices of the pie, I'm much more interested in expanding that pie overall. One of my favorite questions to get asked because I think it is so profoundly missing the point is, “Do you think it's possible for Google to go from number three to number two,” or whatever the number happens to be at some point, and my honest, considered answer is, “Who gives a shit?” Because number three, or number five, or number twelve—it doesn't matter to me—is still how many hundreds of billions of dollars in the fullness of time. Let's be real for a minute here; the total addressable market is expanding faster than any cloud or clouds are going to be able to capture all of.Richard: Yeah. Hey, look, whoever who'll be more profitable solving user problems, I really don't care about the final revenue number. I can be the number one cloud tomorrow by making Google Cloud free. What's the point? That's not a sustainable business. So, if you're just going for who can deploy the most VCPUs or who can deploy the most whatever, there's ways to game that. I want to make sure we are just uniquely solving problems better than anybody else.Corey: Sorry, forgive me. I just sort of zoned out for a second there because I'm just so taken aback and shocked by the idea of someone working at a large cloud provider who expresses a philosophy that isn't lying awake at night fretting over the possibility of someone who isn't them as making money somewhere.Richard: [laugh]. I mean, your idea there, it'll be interesting to watch, kind of, the maker's approach of are you enabling that next round of startups, the next round of people who want to take—I mean, honestly, I like the things we're doing building block-wise, even with our AI: we're not just handing you a vision API, we're giving you a loan processing AI that can process certain types of docs, that more packaged version of AI. Same with healthcare, same with whatever. I can imagine certain startups or a company idea going, “Hey, maybe I could disrupt or serve a new market.”I always love what Square did. They've disrupted emerging markets, small merchants here in North America, wherever, where I didn't need a big expensive point of sale system. You just gave me the nice, right building blocks to disrupt and run my business. Maybe Google Cloud can continue to provide better building blocks, but I do like your idea of actually investment zones, getting part of this. Maybe the next million users are founders and it's not just getting into some of these companies with, frankly, 10, 20, 30,000 people in IT.I think there's still plenty of room in these big enterprises to unlock many more of those companies, much more of their business. But to your point, there's a giant market here that we're not all grabbing yet. For crying out loud, there's tons of opportunity out here. This is not zero-sum.Corey: Take it a step further beyond that, and today, if you have someone who's enterprising, early on in their career, maybe they just got out of school, maybe they have just left their job and are ready to snap, or they have some severance money that they want to throw into something. Great. What do they want to do if they have an idea for a company? Well today, that answer looks a lot like, well, time to go to a boot camp and learn to code for six months so you can build a badly done MVP well enough to get off the ground and get some outside investment, and then go from there. Well, what if we cut that part out entirely?What if there were building blocks of I don't need to know or care that there's a database behind it, or what a database looks like. Picture Visual Basic in a web browser for building apps, and just take this bit of information I give you and store it and give it back to me later. Sure, you're going to have some significant challenges in the architecture or something like that as it goes from this thing that I'm talking about as an MVP to something planet-scale—like a Spotify for example—but that's not most businesses, and that's okay. Get out of the way and let people innovate and iterate on what it is they're doing more rapidly, and make it more accessible to teach people. That becomes huge; that gets the infrastructure bits that cloud providers excel at out of the way, and all it really takes is packaging those things into a golden path of what a given company of a particular profile should be doing, if—unless they have reason to deviate from it—and instead of having this giant paradox of choice issue, it's, “Oh, okay, I'll drag-drop, build things accordingly.”And under the hood, it's doing all the configuration of services and that's great. But suddenly, you've made being a founder of a software company—fundamentally—accessible to people who are not themselves software engineers. And I know that's anathema to some people, and I don't even slightly care because I am done with gatekeeping.Richard: Yeah. No, it's exciting if that can pull off. I mean, it's not the years ago where, how much capital was required to find the rack and do all sorts of things with tech, and hire some developers. And it's an amazing time to be software creators, now. The more we can enable that—yeah, I'm along for that journey, sign me up.Corey: I'm looking forward to seeing how it winds up shaking out. So, I want to talk a little bit about the paradox of choice problem that I just mentioned. If you take a look at the various compute services that every cloud provider offers, there are an awful lot of different choices as far as what you can run. There's the VM model, there's containers—if you're in AWS, you have 17 ways to run those—and you wind up—any of the serverless function story, and other things here and there, and managed services, I mean and honestly, Google has a lot of them, nowhere near as many as you do failed messaging products, but still, an awful lot of compute options. How do customers decide?What is the decision criteria that you see? Because the worst answer you can give someone who doesn't really know what they're doing is, “It depends,” because people don't know how to make that decision. It's, “What factors should I consider then, while making that decision?” And the answer has to be something somewhat authoritative because otherwise, they're going to go on the internet and get yelled at by everyone because no one is ever going to agree on this, except that everyone else is wrong.Richard: Mm-hm. Yeah, I mean, on one hand, look, I like that we intentionally have fewer choices than others because I don't think you need 17 ways to run a container. I think that's excessive. I think more than five is probably excessive because as a customer, what is the trade-off? Now, I would argue first off, I don't care if you have a lot of options as a vendor, but boy, the backends of those better be consistent.Meaning if I have a CI/CD tool in my portfolio and it only writes to two of them, shame on me. Then I should make sure that at least CI/CD, identity management, log management, monitoring, arguably your compute runtime should be a late-binding choice. And maybe that's blasphemous because somebody says, “I want to start up front knowing it's a function,” or, “I want to start it's a VM.” How about, as a developer, I couldn't care less. How about I just build cool software and maybe even at deploy time, I say, “This better fits in running in Kubernetes.” “This is better in a virtual machine.”And my cost of changing that later is meaningless because, hey, if it is in the container, I can switch it between three or four different runtimes, the identity management the same, it logs the exact same way, I can deploy CI/CD the same way. So, first off, if those things aren't the same, then the vendor is messing up. So, the customer shouldn't have to pay the cost of that. And then there gets to be other actual criteria. Look, I think you are looking at the workload itself, the team who makes it, and the strategy to figure out the runtime.It's easy for us. Google Compute Engine for VMs, containers go in GKE, managed services that need some containers, there are some apps around them, are Cloud Functions and Cloud Run. Like, it's fairly straightforward and it's going to be an OR situation—or an AND situation not an OR, which is great. But we're at least saying the premium way to run containers in Google Cloud for systems is GKE. There you go. If you do have a bunch of managed services in your architecture and you're stitching them together, then you want more serverless things like Cloud Run and Cloud Functions. And if you want to just really move some existing workload, GCE is your best choice. I like that that's fairly straightforward. There's still going to be some it depends, but it feels better than nine ways to run Kubernetes engines.Corey: I'm sure we'll see them in the fullness of time.Richard: [laugh].Corey: So, talk about Anthos a bit. That was a thing that was announced a while back and it was extraordinarily unclear what it was. And then I looked at the pricing and it was $10,000 a month with a one-year minimum commitment, and is like, “Oh, it's not for me. That's why I don't get it.” And I haven't really looked back at it since. But it is something else now. It almost feels like a wrapper brand, in some respects. How's it going? [unintelligible 00:29:26]?Richard: Yeah. Consumption, we'll talk more upcoming months on some of the adoption, but we're finally getting the hockey stick, which always comes delayed with platforms because nobody adopts platforms quickly. They buy the platform and a year later they start to actually build new development, migrate the things they have. So, we're starting to see the sort of growth. But back to your first point. And I even think I poorly tried to explain it a year ago with you. Basically, look, Anthos is the ability to manage fleets of GKE clusters, wherever they are. I don't care if they're on-prem, I don't care if they're in Google Cloud, I don't care if they're Amazon. We have one customer who only uses Anthos on AWS. Awesome, rock on.So, how do I put GKE clusters everywhere, but then do fleet management because look, some people are doing an app per cluster. They don't want to jam 50 apps in the cluster from different teams because they don't like the idea that this app requires root access; now you can screw around with mine. Or, you didn't update; that broke the cluster. I don't want any of that. So, you're going to see companies more, doing even app per cluster, app per developer per cluster.So, now I have a fleet problem. How do I keep it in sync? How do I make sure policy is consistent? Those sorts of things. So, Anthos is kind of solving the fleet management challenge and replacing people's first-gen app platform.Seeing a lot of those use cases, “Hey, we're retiring our first version of Docker Enterprise, Mesos, Cloud Foundry, even OpenShift,” saying, “All right, now's the time for our next version of our app platform. How about GKE, plus Cloud Run on top of it, plus other stuff?” Sounds good. So, going well is a, sort of—as you mentioned, there's a brand story here, mainly because we've also done two things that probably matter to you. A, we changed the price a lot.No minimum commit, remarkably at 20% of the cost it was when we launched, on purpose because we've gotten better at this. So, much cheaper, no minimum commit, pay as you go. Be on-premises, on bare metal with GKE. Pay by the hour, I don't care; sounds great. So, you can do that sort of stuff.But then more importantly, if you're a GKE customer and you just want config management, service mesh, things like that, now you can buy all of those independently as well. And Anthos is really the brand for fleet management of GKE. And if you're on Google Cloud only, it adds value. If you're off Google Cloud, if you're multi-cloud, I don't care. But I want to manage fleets of compute clusters and create them. We're going to keep doubling down on that.Corey: The big problem historically for understanding a lot of the adoption paradigm of Kubernetes has been that it was, to some extent, a reimagining of how Google ran and built software internally. And I thought at the time, the idea was—from a cynical perspective—that, “All right, well, your crappy apps don't run well on Google-style infrastructure so we're going to teach the entire world how to write software the way that we do.” And then you end up with people running their blog on top of Kubernetes, where it's one of those, like, the first blog post is, like, “How I spent the last 18 months building Kubernetes.” And, okay, that is certainly a philosophy and an approach, but it's almost approaching Windows 95 launch level of hype, where people who didn't own computers were buying copies of it, on some level. And I see the term come up in conversations in places where it absolutely has no place being brought up. “How do I run a Kubernetes cluster inside of my laptop?” And, “It's what you got going on in there, buddy?”Richard: [laugh].Corey: “What do you think you're trying to do here because you just said something that means something that I think is radically different to me than it is to you.” And again, I'm not here to judge other people's workflows; they're all terrible, except for mine, which is an opinion held by everyone about their own workflow. But understanding where people are, figuring out how to get there, how to meet customers where they are and empower them. And despite how heavily Google has been into the Kubernetes universe since its inception, you're very welcoming to companies—and loud-mouth individuals on Twitter—who have no use for Kubernetes. And working through various products you offer, I don't ever feel like a second-class citizen. There's really something impressive about that, of not letting the hype dictate the product and marketing decisions of it.Richard: Yeah, look, I think I tweeted it recently, I think the future of software is managed services with containers in the gap, for the most part. Whereas—if you can use managed services, please do. Use them wherever you can. And if you have to sling some code, maybe put it in a really portable thing that's really easy to run in lots of places. So, I think that's smart.But for us, look, I think we have the best container workflow from dev tools, and build tools, and artifact registries, and runtimes, but plenty of people are running containers, and you shouldn't be running Kubernetes all over the place. That makes sense for the workload, I think it's better than a VM at the retail edge. Can I run a small cluster, instead of a weird point-of-sale Windows app? Maybe. Maybe it makes sense to have a lightweight Kubernetes cluster there for consistency purposes.So, for me, I think it's a great medium for a subset of software. Google Cloud is going to take whatever you got, which is great. I think containers are great, but at the same time, I'm happily going to let you deploy a function that responds to you adding a storage item to a bucket, where at the same time give you a SaaS service that replaces the need for any code. All of those are terrific. So yeah, we love Kubernetes. We think it's great. We're going to be the best version to run it. But that's not going to be your whole universe.Corey: No, and I would argue it absolutely shouldn't be.Richard: [laugh]. Right. Agreed. Now again, for some companies, it's a great replacement for this giant fleet of VMs that all runs at eight percent utilization. Can I stick this into a bunch of high-density clusters? Absolutely you should. You're going to save an absolute fortune doing that and probably pick up some resilience and functionality benefits.But to your point, “Do I want to run a WordPress site in there?” I don't know, probably not. “Do I need to run my own MySQL?” I'd prefer you not do that. So, in a lot of cases, don't use it unless you have to. That should go for all compute nowadays. Use managed services.Corey: I'm a big believer in going down that approach just because it is so much easier than trying to build it yourself from popsicle sticks because you theoretically might have to move it someday in the future, even though you're not.Richard: [laugh]. Right.Corey: And it lets me feel better about a thing that isn't going to be used by anything that I'm doing in the near future. I just don't pretend to get it.Richard: No, I don't install a general purpose electric charger in my garage for any electric car I may get in the future; I charge for the one I have now. I just want it to work for my car; I don't want to plan for some mythical future. So yeah, premature optimization over architecture, or death in IT, especially nowadays where speed matters, don't waste your time building something that can run in nine clouds.Corey: Richard, I want to thank you for coming on again a year later to suffer my slings, arrows, and other various implements of misfortune. If people want to learn more about what you're doing, how you're doing it, possibly to pull a Forrest Brazeal and go work with you, where can they find you?Richard: Yeah, we're a fun place to work. So, you can find me on Twitter at @rseroter—R-S-E-R-O-T-E-R—hang out on LinkedIn, annoy me on my blog seroter.com as I try to at least explore our tech from time to time and mess around with it. But this is a fun place to work. There's a lot of good stuff going on here, and if you work somewhere else, too, we can still be friends.Corey: Thank you so much for your time today. Richard Seroter, director of outbound product management at Google. I'm Cloud Economist Corey Quinn and this is Screaming in the Cloud. If you've enjoyed this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice, whereas if you've hated this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice along with an angry comment into which you have somehow managed to shove a running container.Corey: If your AWS bill keeps rising and your blood pressure is doing the same, then you need The Duckbill Group. We help companies fix their AWS bill by making it smaller and less horrifying. The Duckbill Group works for you, not AWS. We tailor recommendations to your business and we get to the point. Visit duckbillgroup.com to get started.Announcer: This has been a HumblePod production. Stay humble.

In this episode, Namrata Sharma discusses the existing connections between Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and Global Citizenship Education (GCE). She talks about her work examining the underlying paradigms and perspectives of GCE and ESD, and how she situates her studies within the wide-ranging scholarship that challenges the overall western-view of GCE. She also mentions the books that she has written where she proposes value-creating GCE as a pedagogical approach that she has developed from a study of less widely known perspectives, especially focusing on important contributions that come from eastern thinkers. Sharma illustrates these ideas with the example of Soka University, an institution which she believes successfully fosters global citizens. Finally, she makes connections between GCE and The Earth Charter, and how this document is helpful and complimentary to creating global citizens through ESD.

#TAPIN with GCE as we share our thoughts on some awesome match ups over the weekend! Rookie QBs struggles? Could there be coaches already on the

Bora Brasil, com Ana Paula Rodrigues e Joel Datena.Entrevista com técnico de meteorologia do GCE, Adilson Nazário.

About CraigCraig McLuckie is a VP of R&D at VMware in the Modern Applications Business Unit.  He joined VMware through the Heptio acquisition where he was CEO and co-founder. Heptio was a startup that supported the enterprise adoption of open source technologies like Kubernetes.  He previously worked at Google where he co-founded the Kubernetes project, was responsible for the formation of CNCF, and was the original product lead for Google Compute Engine.Links: VMware: https://www.vmware.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/cmcluck LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/craigmcluckie/ TranscriptAnnouncer: Hello, and welcome to Screaming in the Cloud with your host, Chief Cloud Economist at the Duckbill Group, Corey Quinn. This weekly show features conversations with people doing interesting work in the world of cloud, thoughtful commentary on the state of the technical world, and ridiculous titles for which Corey refuses to apologize. This is Screaming in the Cloud.Corey: This episode is sponsored in part my Cribl Logstream. Cirbl Logstream is an observability pipeline that lets you collect, reduce, transform, and route machine data from anywhere, to anywhere. Simple right? As a nice bonus it not only helps you improve visibility into what the hell is going on, but also helps you save money almost by accident. Kind of like not putting a whole bunch of vowels and other letters that would be easier to spell in a company name. To learn more visit: cribl.ioCorey: This episode is sponsored in part by Thinkst. This is going to take a minute to explain, so bear with me. I linked against an early version of their tool, canarytokens.org in the very early days of my newsletter, and what it does is relatively simple and straightforward. It winds up embedding credentials, files, that sort of thing in various parts of your environment, wherever you want to; it gives you fake AWS API credentials, for example. And the only thing that these things do is alert you whenever someone attempts to use those things. It's an awesome approach. I've used something similar for years. Check them out. But wait, there's more. They also have an enterprise option that you should be very much aware of canary.tools. You can take a look at this, but what it does is it provides an enterprise approach to drive these things throughout your entire environment. You can get a physical device that hangs out on your network and impersonates whatever you want to. When it gets Nmap scanned, or someone attempts to log into it, or access files on it, you get instant alerts. It's awesome. If you don't do something like this, you're likely to find out that you've gotten breached, the hard way. Take a look at this. It's one of those few things that I look at and say, “Wow, that is an amazing idea. I love it.” That's canarytokens.org and canary.tools. The first one is free. The second one is enterprise-y. Take a look. I'm a big fan of this. More from them in the coming weeks.Corey: Welcome to Screaming in the Cloud. I'm Corey Quinn. My guest today is Craig McLuckie, who's a VP of R&D at VMware, specifically in their modern applications business unit. Craig, thanks for joining me. VP of R&D sounds almost like it's what's sponsoring a Sesame Street episode. What do you do exactly?Craig: Hey, Corey, it's great to be on with you. So, I'm obviously working within the VMware company, and my charter is really looking at modern applications. So, the modern application platform business unit is really grounded in the work that we're doing to make technologies like Kubernetes and containers, and a lot of developer-centric technologies like Spring, more accessible to developers to make sure that as developers are using those technologies, they shine through on the VMware infrastructure technologies that we are working on.Corey: Before we get into, I guess, the depths of what you're focusing on these days, let's look a little bit backwards into the past. Once upon a time, in the dawn of the modern cloud era—I guess we'll call it—you were the original product lead for Google Compute Engine or GCE. How did you get there? That seems like a very strange thing to be—something that, “Well, what am I going to build? Well, that's right; basically a VM service for a giant company that is just starting down the cloud path,” back when that was not an obvious thing for a company to do.Craig: Yeah, I mean, it was as much luck and serendipity as anything else, if I'm going to be completely honest. I spent a lot of time working at Microsoft, building enterprise technology, and one of the things I was extremely excited about was, obviously, the emergence of cloud. I saw this as being a fascinating disrupter. And I was also highly motivated at a personal level to just make IT simpler and more accessible. I spent a fair amount of time building systems within Microsoft, and then even a very small amount of time running systems within a hedge fund.So, I got, kind of, both of those perspectives. And I just saw this cloud thing as being an extraordinarily exciting way to drive out the cost of operations, to enable organizations to just focus on what really mattered to them which was getting those production systems deployed, getting them updated and maintained, and just having to worry a little bit less about infrastructure. And so when that opportunity arose, I jumped with both feet. Google obviously had a reputation as a company that was born in the cloud, it had a reputation of being extraordinarily strong from a technical perspective, so having a chance to bridge the gap between enterprise technology and that cloud was very exciting to me.Corey: This was back in an era when, in my own technical evolution, I was basically tired of working with Puppet as much as I had been, and I was one of the very early developers behind SaltStack, once upon a time—which since then you folks have purchased, which shows that someone didn't do their due diligence because something like 41 lines of code in the current release version is still assigned to me as per git-blame. So, you know, nothing is perfect. And right around then, then I started hearing about this thing that was at one point leveraging SaltStack, kind of, called Kubernetes, which, “I can't even pronounce that, so I'm just going to ignore it. Surely, this is never going to be something that I'm going to have to hear about once this fad passes.” It turns out that the world moved on a little bit differently.And you were also one of the co-founders of the Kubernetes project, which means that it seems like we have been passing each other in weird ways for the past decade or so. So, you're working on GCE, and then one day you want to, what, sitting up and deciding, “I know, we're going to build a container orchestration system because I want to have something that's going to take me 20 minutes to explain to someone who's never heard of these concepts before.” How did this come to be?Craig: It's really interesting, and a lot of it was driven by necessity, driven by a view that to make a technology like Google Compute Engine successful, we needed to go a little bit further. When you look at a technology like Google Compute Engine, we'd built something that was fabulous and Google's infrastructure is world-class, but there's so much more to building a successful cloud business than just having a great infrastructure technology. There's obviously everything that goes with that in terms of being able to meet enterprises where they are and all the—Corey: Oh, yeah. And everything at Google is designed for Google scale. It's, “We built this thing and we can use it to stand up something that is world-scale and get 10 million customers on the first day that it launches.” And, “That's great. I'm trying to get a Hello World page up and maybe, if I shoot for the moon, it can also run WordPress.” There's a very different scale of problem.Craig: It's just a very different thing. When you look at what an organization needs to use a technology, it's nice that you can take that, sort of, science-fiction data center and carve it up into smaller pieces and offer it as a virtual machine to someone. But you also need to look at the ISV ecosystem, the people that are building the software, making sure that it's qualified. You need to make sure that you have the ability to engage with the enterprise customer and support them through a variety of different functions. And so, as we were looking at what it would take to really succeed, it became clear that we needed a little more; we needed to, kind of, go a little bit further.And around that time, Docker was really coming into its full. You know, Docker solved some of the problems that organizations had always struggled with. Virtual machine is great, but it's difficult to think about. And inside Google, containers we're a thing.Corey: Oh, containers have a long and storied history in different areas. From my perspective, Docker solves the problem of, “Well, it works on my machine,” because before something like Docker, the only answer was, “Well, backup your email because your laptop's about to be in production.”Craig: [laugh]. Yeah, that's exactly right. You know, I think when I look at what Docker did, and it was this moment of clarity because a lot of us had been talking about this and thinking about it. I remember turning to Joe while we were building Compute Engine and basically said, “Whoever solves the packaging the way that Google did internally, and makes that accessible to the world is ultimately going to walk away with a game.” And I think Docker put lightning in a bottle.They really just focused on making some of these technologies that underpinned the hyperscalers, that underpinned the way that, like, a Google, or a Facebook, or a Twitter tended to operate, just accessible to developers. And they solved one very specific thing which was that packaging problem. You could take a piece of software and you could now package it up and deploy it as an immutable thing. So, in some ways, back to your own origins with SaltStack and some of the technologies you've worked on, it really was an epoch of DevOps; let's give developers tools so that they can code something up that renders a production system. And now with Docker, you're able to shift that all left. So, what you produced was the actual deployable artifact, but that obviously wasn't enough by itself.Corey: No, there needed to be something else. And according to your biography, not only it says here that, I quote, “You were responsible for the formation of the CNCF, or Cloud Native Computing Foundation,” and I'm trying to understand is that something that you're taking credit for or being blamed for? It really seems like it could go either way, given the very careful wording there.Craig: [laugh]. Yeah, it could go either way. It certainly got away from us a little bit in terms of just the scope and scale of what was going on. But the whole thesis behind Kubernetes, if you just step back a little bit, was we didn't need to own it; Google didn't need to own it. We just needed to move the innovation boundary forwards into an area that we had some very strong advantages.And if you look at the way that Google runs, it kind of felt like when people were working with Docker, and you had technologies like Mesos and all these other things, they were trying to put together a puzzle, and we already had the puzzle box in front of us because we saw how that technology worked. So, we didn't need to control it, we just needed people to embrace it, and we were confident that we could run it better. But for people to embrace it, it couldn't be seen as just a Google thing. It had to be a Google thing, and a Red Hat thing, and an Amazon thing, and a Microsoft thing, and something that was really owned by the community. So, the inspiration behind CNCF was to really put the technology forwards to build a collaborative community around it and to enable and foster this disruption.Corey: At some point after Kubernetes was established, and it was no longer an internal Google project but something that was handed over to a foundation, something new started to become fairly clear in the larger ecosystem. And it's sort of a microcosm of my observation that the things that startups are doing today are what enterprises are going to be doing five years from now. Every enterprise likes to imagine itself a startup; the inverse is not particularly commonly heard. You left Google to go found Heptio, where you were focusing on enterprise adoption of open-source technologies, specifically Kubernetes, but it also felt like it was more of a cultural shift in many respects, which is odd because there aren't that many startups, at least in that era, that were focused on bringing startup technologies to the enterprise, and sneaking in—or at least that's how it felt—the idea of culture change as well.Craig: You know, it's really interesting. Every enterprise has to innovate, and people tend to look at startups as being a source of innovation or a source of incubation. What we were trying to do with Heptio was to go the other way a little bit, which was, when you look at what West Coast tech companies were doing, and you look at a technology like Kubernetes—or any new technology: Kubernetes, or KNative, or there's some of these new observability capabilities that are starting to emerge in this ecosystem—there's this sort of trickle-across effect, where it's starts with the West Coast tech companies that build something, and then it trickles across to a lot of the progressive forward-leaning enterprise organizations that have the scale to consume those technologies. And then over time, it becomes mainstream. And when I looked at a technology like Kubernetes, and certainly through the lens of a company like Google, there was an opportunity to step back a little bit and think about, well, Google's really this West Coast tech company, and it's producing this technology, and it's working to make that more enterprise-centric, but how about going the other way?How about meeting enterprise organizations where they are—enterprise organizations that aspire to adopt some of these practices—and build a startup that's really about just walking the journey with customers, advocating for their needs, through the lens of these open-source communities, making these open-source technologies more accessible. And that was really the thesis around what we were doing with Heptio. And we worked very hard to do exactly as you said which is, it's not just about the tech, it's about how you use it, it's about how you operate it, how you set yourself up to manage it. And that was really the core thesis around what we were pursuing there. And it worked out quite well.Corey: Sitting here in 2021, if I were going to build something from scratch, I would almost certainly not use Kubernetes to do it. I'd probably pick a bunch of serverless primitives and go from there, but what I respect and admire about the Kubernetes approach is companies can't generally do that with existing workloads; you have to meet them where they are, as you said. ‘Legacy' is a condescending engineering phrase for ‘it makes money.' It's, “Oh, what does that piece of crap do?” “Oh, about $4 billion a year.” So yeah, we're going to be a little delicate with what it does.Craig: I love that observation. I always prefer the word ‘heritage' over the word legacy. You got to—Corey: Yeah.Craig: —have a little respect. This is the stuff that's running the world. This is the stuff that every transaction is flowing through.And it's funny, when you start looking at it, often you follow the train along and eventually you'll find a mainframe somewhere, right? It is definitely something that we need to be a little bit more thoughtful about.Corey: Right. And as cloud continues to eat the world well, as of the time of this recording, there is no AWS/400, so there is no direct mainframe option in most cloud providers, so there has to be a migration path; there has to be a path forward, that doesn't include, “Oh, and by the way, take 18 months to rewrite everything that you've built.” And containers, particularly with an orchestration model, solve that problem in a way that serverless primitives, frankly, don't.Craig: I agree with you. And it's really interesting to me as I work with enterprise organizations. I look at that modernization path as a journey. Cloud isn't just a destination: there's a lot of different permutations and steps that need to be taken. And every one of those has a return on investment.If you're an enterprise organization, you don't modernize for modernization's sake, you don't embrace cloud for cloud's sake. You have a specific outcome in mind, “Hey, I want to drive down this cost,” or, “Hey, I want to accelerate my innovation here,” “Hey, I want to be able to set my teams up to scale better this way.” And so a lot of these technologies, whether it's Kubernetes, or even serverless is becoming increasingly important, is a capability that enables a business outcome at the end of the day. And when I think about something like Kubernetes, it really has, in a way, emerged as a Goldilocks abstraction. It's low enough level that you can run pretty much anything, it's high enough level that it hides away the specifics of the environment that you want to deploy it into. And ultimately, it renders up what I think is economies of scope for an organization. I don't know if that makes sense. Like, you have these economies of scale and economies of scope.Corey: Given how down I am on Kubernetes across the board and—at least, as it's presented—and don't take that personally; I'm down on most modern technologies. I'm the person that said the cloud was a passing fad, that virtualization was only going to see limited uptake, that containers were never going to eat the world. And I finally decided to skip ahead of the Kubernetes thing for a minute and now I'm actually going to be positive about serverless. Given how wrong I am on these things, that almost certainly dooms it. But great, I was down on Kubernetes for a long time because I kept seeing these enterprises and other companies talking about their Kubernetes strategy.It always felt like Kubernetes was a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. And I want to be clear, I'm not talking about vendors here because if you are a software provider to a bunch of companies and providing Kubernetes is part and parcel of what you do, yeah, you need a Kubernetes strategy. But the blue-chip manufacturing company that is modernizing its entire IT estate, doesn't need a Kubernetes strategy as such. Am I completely off base with that assessment?Craig: No, I think you're pointing at something which I feel as well. I mean, I'll be honest, I've been talking about [laugh] Kubernetes since day one, and I'm kind of tired of talking about Kubernetes. It should just be something that's there; you shouldn't have to worry about it, you shouldn't have to worry about operationalizing it. It's just an infrastructure abstraction. It's not in and of itself an end, it's simply a means to an end, which is being able to start looking at the destination you're deploying your software into as being more favorable for building distributed systems, not having to worry about the mechanics of what happens if a single node fails? What happens if I have to scale this thing? What happens if I have to update this thing?So, it's really not intended—and it never was intended—to be an end unto itself. It was really just intended to raise the waterline and provide an environment into which distributed applications can be deployed that felt entirely consistent, whether you're building those on-premises, in the public cloud, and increasingly out to the edge.Corey: I wound up making a tweet, couple years back, specifically in 2019, that the nuclear hot take: “Nobody will care about Kubernetes in five years.” And I stand by it, but I also think that's been wildly misinterpreted because I am not suggesting in any way that it's going to go away and no one is going to use it anymore. But I think it's going to matter in the same way as the operating system is starting to, the way that the Linux virtual memory management subsystem does now. Yes, a few people in specific places absolutely care a lot about those things, but most companies don't because they don't have to. It's just the way things are. It's almost an operating system for the data center, or the cloud environment, for lack of a better term. But is that assessment accurate? And if you don't wildly disagree with it, what do you think of the timeline?Craig: I think the assessment is accurate. The way I always think about this is you want to present your engineers, your developers, the people that are actually taking a business problem and solving it with code, you want to deliver to them the highest possible abstraction. The less they have to worry about the infrastructure, the less they have to worry about setting up their environment, the less they have to worry about the DevOps or DevSecOps pipeline, the better off they're going to be. And so if we as an industry do our job right, Kubernetes is just the water in which IT swims. You know, like the fish doesn't see the water; it's just there.We shouldn't be pushing the complexity of the system—because it is a fancy and complex system—directly to developers. They shouldn't necessarily have to think like, “Oh, I need to understand all of the XYZ is about how this thing works to be able to build a system.” There will be some engineers that benefit from it, but there are going to be other engineers that don't. The one thing that I think is going to—you know, is a potential change on what you said is, we're going to see people starting to program Kubernetes more directly, whether they know it or not. I don't know if that makes sense, but things like the ability for Kubernetes to offer up a way for organizations to describe the desired state of something and then using some of the patterns of Kubernetes to make the world into that shape is going to be quite pervasive, and I'm really seeing signs that we're seeing it.So yes, most developers are going to be working with higher abstractions. Yes, technologies like Knative and all of the work that we at VMware are doing within the ecosystem will render those higher abstractions to developers. But there's going to be some really interesting opportunities to take what made Kubernetes great beyond just, “Hey, I can put a Docker container down on a virtual machine,” and start to think about reconciler-driven IT: being able to describe what you want to have happen in the world, and then having a really smart system that just makes the world into that shape.Corey: This episode is sponsored by our friends at Oracle HeatWave is a new high-performance accelerator for the Oracle MySQL Database Service. Although I insist on calling it “my squirrel.” While MySQL has long been the worlds most popular open source database, shifting from transacting to analytics required way too much overhead and, ya know, work. With HeatWave you can run your OLTP and OLAP, don't ask me to ever say those acronyms again, workloads directly from your MySQL database and eliminate the time consuming data movement and integration work, while also performing 1100X faster than Amazon Aurora, and 2.5X faster than Amazon Redshift, at a third of the cost. My thanks again to Oracle Cloud for sponsoring this ridiculous nonsense. Corey: So, you went from driving Kubernetes adoption into the enterprise as the founder and CEO of Heptio, to effectively, acquired by one of the most enterprise-y of enterprise companies, in some respects, VMware, and your world changed. So, I understand what Heptio does because, to my mind, a big company is one that is 200 people. VMware has slightly more than that at last count, and I sort of lose track of all the threads of the different things that VMware does and how it operates. I could understand what Heptio does. What I don't understand is what, I guess, your corner of VMware does. Modern applications means an awful lot of things to an awful lot of people. I prefer to speak it with a condescending accent when making fun of those legacy things that make money—not a popular take, but it's there—how do you define what you do now?Craig: So, for me, when you talk about modern application platform, you can look at it one of two ways. You can say it's a platform for modern applications, and when people have modern applications, they have a whole variety of different ideas in the head: okay, well, it's microservices-based, or it's API-fronted, it's event-driven, it's supporting stream-based processing, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. There's all kinds of fun, cool, hip new patterns that are happening in the segment. The other way you could look at it is it's a modern platform for applications of any kind. So, it's really about how do we make sense of going from where you are today to where you need to be in the future?How do we position the set of tools that you can use, as they make sense, as your organization evolves, as your organization changes? And so I tend to look at my role as being bringing these capabilities to our existing product line, which is, obviously, the vSphere product line, and it's almost a hyperscale unto itself, but it's really about that private cloud experience historically, and making those capabilities accessible in that environment. But there's another part to this as well, which is, it's not just about running technologies on vSphere. It's also about how can we make a lot of different public clouds look and feel consistent without hiding the things that they are particularly great at. So, every public cloud has its own set of capabilities, its own price-performance profile, its own service ecosystem, and richness around that.So, what can we do to make it so that as you're thinking about your journey from taking an existing system, one of those heritage systems, and thinking through the evolution of that system to meet your business requirements, to be able to evolve quickly, to be able to go through that digital transformation journey, and package it up and deliver the right tools at the right time in the right environment, so that we can walk the journey with our customers?Corey: Does this tie into Tanzu, or is that a different VMware initiative slash division? And my apologies on that one, just because it's difficult for me to wrap my head around where Tanzu starts and stops. If I'm being frank.Craig: So, [unintelligible 00:21:49] is the heart of Tanzu. So Tanzu, in a way, is a new branch, a new direction for VMware. It's about bringing this richness of capabilities to developers running in any cloud environment. It's an amalgamation of a lot of great technologies that people aren't even aware of that VMware has been building, or that VMware has gained through acquisition, certainly Heptio and the ability to bring Kubernetes to an enterprise organization is part of that. But we're also responsible for things like Spring.Spring is a critical anchor for Java developers. If you look at the Spring community, we participate in one and a half million new application starts a month. And you wouldn't necessarily associate VMware with that, but we're absolutely driving critical innovation in that space. Things, like full-stack observability, being able to not only deploy these container-packaged applications, but being able to actually deal with the day two operations, and how to deal with the APM considerations, et cetera. So, Tanzu is an all-in push from VMware to bring the technologies like Kubernetes and everything that exists above Kubernetes to our customers, but also to new customers in the public cloud that are really looking for consistency across those environments.Corey: When I look at what you've been doing for the past decade or so, it really tells a story of transitions, where you went from product lead on GCE, to working on Kubernetes. You took Kubernetes from an internal Google reimagining of Borg into an open-source project that has been given over to the CNCF. You went from running Heptio, which was a startup, to working at one of the least startup-y-like companies, by some measures, in the world.s you seem to have gone from transiting from one thing to almost its exact opposite, repeatedly, throughout your career. What's up with that theme?Craig: I think if you look back on the transitions and those key steps, the one thing that I've consistently held in my head, and I think my personal motivation was really grounded in this view that IT is too hard, right? IT is just too challenging. So, the transition from Microsoft, where I was responsible building package software, to Google, which was about cloud, was really marking that transition of, “Hey, we just need to do better for the enterprise organization.” The transition from focusing on a virtual machine-based system, which was the state of the art at the time to unlocking these modern orchestrated container-based system was in service of that need, which was, “Hey, you know, if you can start to just treat a number of virtual machines as a destination that has a distributed operating system on top of it, we're going to be better off.” The need to transition to a community-centric outcome because while Google is amazing in so many ways, being able to benefit from the perspective that traditional enterprise organizations brought to the table was significant to transitioning into a startup where we were really serving enterprise organizations and providing that interface back into the community to ultimately joining VMware because at the end of the day, there's a lot of work to be done here.And when you're selling a startup, it's—you're either selling out or you're buying in, and I'm not big on the idea of selling out. In this case, having access to the breadth of VMware, having access to the place where most of the customers are really cared about were living, and all of those heritage systems that are just running the world's business. So, for me, it's really been about walking that journey on behalf of that individual that's just trying to make ends meet; just trying to make sure that their IT systems stay lit; that are trying to make sure that the debt that they're creating today in the IT environment isn't payday loan debt, it's more like a mortgage. I can get into an environment that's going to serve me and my family well. And so, each of those transitions has really just been marked by need.And I tend to look at the needs of that enterprise organization that's walking this journey as being an anchor for me. And I'm pleased with every transition I've made. Like, at every point we've—sort of, Joe and myself, who's been on this journey for a while, have been able to better serve that individual.Corey: Now, I know that it's always challenging to talk about the future, but do you think you're done with those radical transitions, as you continue to look forward to what's coming? I mean, it's impossible to predict the future, but you're clearly where you are for a reason, and I'm assuming part of that reason is because you see an opportunity; you see a transformation that is currently unfolding. What does that look like from where you sit?Craig: Well, I mean, my work in VMware [laugh] is very far from done. There's just an amazing amount of continued opportunity to deliver value not only to those existing customers where they're running on-prem but to make the public cloud more intrinsically accessible and to increasingly solve the problems as more computational resources fanning back out to the edge. So, I'm extremely excited about the opportunity ahead of us from the VMware perspective. I think we have some incredible advantages because, at the end of the day, we're both a neutral party—you know, we're not a hyperscaler. We're not here to compete with the hyperscalers on the economies of scale that they render.But we're also working to make sure that as the hyperscalers are offering up these new services and everything else, that we can help the enterprise organization make best use of that. We can help them make best use of that infrastructure environment, we can help them navigate the complexities of things like concentration risk, or being able to manage through the luck and potential that some of these things represent. So, I don't want to see the world collapse back into the mainframe era. I think that's the thing that really motivates me, I think, the transition from mainframe to client-server, the work that Wintel did—the Windows-Intel consortium—to unlock that ecosystem just created massive efficiencies and massive benefits from everyone. And I do feel like with the combination of technologies like Kubernetes and everything that's happening on top of that, and the opportunity that an organization like VMware has to be a neutral party, to really bridge the gap between enterprises and those technologies, we're in a situation where we can create just tremendous value in the world: making it so that modernization is a journey rather than a destination, helping customers modernize at a pace that's reasonable to them, and ultimately serving both the cloud providers in terms of bringing some critical workloads to the cloud, but also serving customers so that as they live with the harsh realities of a multi-cloud universe where I don't know one enterprise organization that's just all-in on one cloud, we can provide some really useful capabilities and technologies to make them feel more consistent, more familiar, without hiding what's great about each of them.Corey: Craig, thank you so much for taking the time to speak with me today about where you sit, how you see the world, where you've been, and little bits of where we're going. If people want to learn more, where can they find you?Craig: Well, I'm on Twitter, @cmcluck, and obviously, on LinkedIn. And we'll continue to invite folks to attend a lot of our events, whether that's the Spring conferences that VMware sponsors, or VMWorld. And I'm really excited to have an opportunity to talk more about what we're doing and some of the great things we're up to.Corey: I will certainly be following up as the year continues to unfold. Thanks so much for your time. I really appreciate it.Craig: Thank you so much for your time as well.Corey: Craig McLuckie, Vice President of R&D at VMware in their modern applications business unit. I'm Cloud Economist Corey Quinn, and this is Screaming in the Cloud. If you've enjoyed this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice, whereas if you've hated this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice along with a comment that I won't bother to read before designating it legacy or heritage.Corey: If your AWS bill keeps rising and your blood pressure is doing the same, then you need the Duckbill Group. We help companies fix their AWS bill by making it smaller and less horrifying. The Duckbill Group works for you, not AWS. We tailor recommendations to your business and we get to the point. Visit duckbillgroup.com to get started.Announcer: This has been a HumblePod production. Stay humble.

This week, Ryland and Charlie answer the call of Tha Reel Sh!t!! After the latest GCE(Group Choice Episode) was decided, a champion has emerged. And it's someone that has graced the podcast's presence before. The now 2-time GCE poll winner Alex Courson joins the boys to talk ALL THINGS MARVEL!! They explore the content that's already been released as well as speculate on new and upcoming projects that make up the whole of Phase Four in the MCU. On top of that, they talk South Park, Suicide Squad, and try their best to recast some of the most popular MCU characters. All this and more on the brand spankin new episode of Spittin' Tha Reel Sh!t Until Next Time!! To be part of ALL the action, you need to be a member of Tha Reel Sh!t FB Group. Just follow this link!! https://www.facebook.com/groups/397783900310183/

During this interview, we discuss CStraight's 10-year hiatus, the process of returning, God Chaserz's 15-year anniversary, and more. The newest release from GodChaserz Entertainment will be Cstraight's sophomore album entitled “The View From Here.” After a 10-year hiatus, Cstraight is returning to give supporters a new addition to their GodChaszerz library. Cstraight is one of the pillars of GCE's artist roster and has been featured on numerous projects through the years. “This album is focused on looking at things the way that the Word of God sees them,” says Cstraight. Fans can expect the gritty and imaginative wordplay Cstraight is known for as well as some head nod vibes to ride to. ABOUT THE ARTIST Biography Cstraight is a Christian Rap artist from Jacksonville, FL. Cstraight surrendered his life to Christ and immediately began his music career in his late teens under the name Likewise. His music is heavily influenced by his belief and faith in Jesus Christ as well as his life experiences. Cstraight has released 2 albums, 2 group albums & has been featured on many nationally released projects. Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/cstraighttheone/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/cstraighttheone/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CStraighttheone/

I talk some more about power vs. powerlessness and how I used this lens to make personal choices all yesterday. Viewing choice through this filter had me making more deliberate and empowering choices for sure. Realizing that I could add or subtract from my power with one choice prompted me to add more often than not. I also talked about how I listened to Eileen McKusick's Healing Your Relationship with Money group clearing call and it kicked my ass! I really went deep on this one and need to listen to it many more times to get aligned with the frequencies that encourage money to come into my life more. I was so tired after listening to it. I highly recommend this GCE to anyone who is looking to heal their attitudes around money. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

The GCE welcomes another guest as we all chime in on the surprising JJ Watt sign to the AZ Cardinals, five on one discussing D4K and the FAKE

"The Tablets of Baha'u'llah to the Kings and Rulers of the World" by Stephen Vickers Baha'u'llah, the Prophet-Founder of the Baha'i Faith, wrote from His cell in the Ottoman Prison-city to the principal rulers of the world. This talk looks at His letter to the most powerful monarchs in Europe. This message is also positive, respectful, and includes invaluable insights to all of us. Stephen Vickers was for fifteen years in charge of the University of Oxford's suite of GCE and GCSE school examinations in History, Political Science, and Religious Studies. Please feel free to share this invitation with your friends and family. To view the video please visit our YouTube channel https://youtu.be/sy5_M71dmVY

The core piece of ChurchOS is called The Great Commission Engine, derived from 3 key Scriptures from the New Testament. Doug and Bart unpack the GCE and share how it all centers around a passion for reaching “the ONE”, as Jesus talked about in the parables found in Luke 15. The GCE is truly about “getting back to the basics” and is relevant and applicable to ANY church, no matter the size, denomination, or context. NEXT STEPS Check out our book, Intentional Churches, wherever you buy your books Visit intentionalchurches.com to get free resources and learn more about how we can partner with your church Stay connected by subscribing to our monthly resource newsletter at intentionalchurches.com/blog Learn more about the Activate Experience at churchosonline.com

In this episode, we discuss the Google Certified Educator program. We'll go over some of the benefits of the program and give you some tips to help you be successful on the Level 1 exam.If you like what you hear, we would love it if you could share this episode with a colleague or friend. And make sure you subscribe so that you don't miss out on any new content!We would love to hear from you – leave us a message on our FLIPGRID!News and UpdatesGoogle Currents - new for G Suite for Education and G Suite Enterprise for Education accountsFeatured ContentGoogle Certified Educator, Level 1Benefits:How to use the Google tools effectively and efficientlyCurriculum focuses on practices and applicationsBoosts your confidence using the toolsDon't waste your time trying to figure out the tech stuff; focus on what matters in your classroomSaves you time!How to get started:New curriculum Center - Educator Level 1 is under the Certifications tabOld curriculum Center3 main sections and 13 units in totalReview curriculum first then register for the exam ($10 USD) Exam details - 3 hours (180 minutes) - mostly task-orientedOur best tips:Go through the curriculum provided by Google carefully - click on all the hyperlinks even if you know the tool/skill already - ExampleFocus on the skills, not the knowledge - practice using the tools! Use checklists to make sure you've covered all the skillsShake Up LearningEric CurtsFind ways to use the tools efficiently - get to know your keyboard shortcuts!When writing the exam, don't worry about making things pretty! They are not looking for pretty, just that you know the skills and can do the tasks - don't be a font snob :)Try out the exam practice questions - there are some MC/Matching/Ranking types of questions and the practice Qs that Google provides in the Sample Exam as well as throughout the curriculum is good for practiceExam is divided into a short MC/Matching/Ranking section and a task-oriented section. Spend the majority of your time on the tasks!Don't spend too much time looking up things during your exam - time is tight so if you do this, you're likely to run out of timeUse a personal email instead of your work email in case you switch districts/jobs etc.Choose the right exam provider for you! Kryterion/WebAssessor vs ProctorU. Doesn't matter which one your choose for now but Google is transitioning to ProctorU. Pay close attention to the instructions from your providerRecertification every 36 months in the last 60 daysBelieve in yourself! You've got this!SSupport the show (https://www.buymeacoffee.com/edugals)

There are two words that get the blame more often than not when a problem cannot be rooted: the network! Today, along with special guest, Scott Lowe, we try to dig into what the network actually means. We discover, through our discussion that the network is, in fact, a distributed system. This means that each component of the network has a degree of independence and the complexity of them makes it difficult to understand the true state of the network. We also look at some of the fascinating parallels between networks and other systems, such as the configuration patterns for distributed systems. A large portion of the show deals with infrastructure and networks, but we also look at how developers understand networks. In a changing space, despite self-service becoming more common, there is still generally a poor understanding of networks from the developers’ vantage point. We also cover other network-related topics, such as the future of the network engineer’s role, transferability of their skills and other similarities between network problem-solving and development problem-solving. Tune in today! Follow us: https://twitter.com/thepodlets Website: https://thepodlets.io Feeback: info@thepodlets.io https://github.com/vmware-tanzu/thepodlets/issues Hosts: Duffie Cooley Nicholas Lane Josh Rosso Key Points From This Episode: • The network is often confused with the server or other elements when there is a problem.• People forget that the network is a distributed system, which has independent routers.• The distributed pieces that make up a network could be standalone computers.• The parallels between routing protocols and configuration patterns for distributed systems.• There is not a model for eventually achieving consistent networks, particularly if they are old.• Most routing patterns have a time-sensitive mechanism where traffic can be re-dispersed.• Understanding a network is a distributed system gives insights into other ones, like Kubernetes.• Even from a developers’ perspective, there is a limited understanding of the network.• There are many overlaps between developers and infrastructural thinking about systems.• How can network engineers apply their skills across different systems?• As the future changes, understanding the systems and theories is crucial for network engineers.• There is a chasm between networking and development.• The same ‘primitive’ tools are still being used for software application layers.• An explanation of CSMACD, collisions and their applicability. • Examples of cloud native applications where the network does not work at all.• How Spanning Tree works and the problems that it solves.• The relationship between software-defined networking and the adoption of cloud native technologies.• Software-defined networking increases the ability to self-service.• With self-service on-prem solutions, there is still not a great deal of self-service. Quotes: “In reality, what we have are 10 or hundreds of devices with the state of the network as a system, distributed in little bitty pieces across all of these devices.” — @scott_lowe [0:03:11] “If you understand how a network is a distributed system and how these theories apply to a network, then you can extrapolate those concepts and apply them to something like Kubernetes or other distributed systems.” — @scott_lowe [0:14:05] “A lot of these software defined networking concepts are still seeing use in the modern clouds these days” — @scott_lowe [0:44:38] “The problems that we are trying to solve in networking are not different than the problems that you are trying to solve in applications.” — @mauilion [0:51:55] Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode: Scott Lowe on LinkedIn — https://www.linkedin.com/in/scottslowe/ Scott Lowe’s blog — https://blog.scottlowe.org/ Kafka — https://kafka.apache.org/ Redis — https://redis.io/ Raft — https://raft.github.io/ Packet Pushers — https://packetpushers.net/ AWS — https://aws.amazon.com/ Azure — https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/ Martin Casado — http://yuba.stanford.edu/~casado/ Transcript: EPISODE 15 [INTRODUCTION] [0:00:08.7] ANNOUNCER: Welcome to The Podlets Podcast, a weekly show that explores Cloud Native one buzzword at a time. Each week, experts in the field will discuss and contrast distributed systems concepts, practices, tradeoffs and lessons learned to help you on your cloud native journey. This space moves fast and we shouldn’t reinvent the wheel. If you’re an engineer, operator or technically minded decision maker, this podcast is for you. [EPISODE] [0:00:41.4] DC: Good afternoon everybody. In this episode, we’re going to talk about the network. My name is Duffie Cooley and I’ll be the lead of this episode and with me, I have Nick. [0:00:49.0] NL: Hey, what’s up everyone. [0:00:51.5] DC: And Josh. [0:00:52.5] JS: Hi. [0:00:53.6] DC: And Mr. Scott Lowe joining us as a guest speaker. [0:00:56.2] SL: Hey everyone. [0:00:57.6] DC: Welcome, Scott. [0:00:58.6] SL: Thank you. [0:01:00.5] DC: In this discussion, we’re going to try and stay away, like we do always, we’re going to try and stay away from particular products or solutions that are related to the problem. The goal of it is to really kind of dig in to like what the network means when we refer to it as it relates to like cloud native applications or just application design in general. One of the things that I’ve noticed over time and I’m curious, what you all think but like, one of the things I’ve done over time is that people are kind of the mind that if it can’t root cause a particular issue that they run into, they’re like, “That was the network.” Have you all seen that kind of stuff out there? [0:01:31.4] NL: Yes, absolutely. In my previous life, before being a Kubernetes architect, I actually used my networking and engineering degree to be a network administrator for the Boeing Company, under the Boeing Corporation. Time and time again, someone would come to me and say, “This isn’t working. The network is down.” And I’m like, “Is the network down or is the server down?” Because those are different things. Turns out it was usually the server. [0:01:58.5] SL: I used to tell my kids that they would come to me and they would say, the Internet is down and I would say, “Well, you know. I don’t think the entire Internet is down, I think it’s just our connection to the Internet.” [0:02:10.1] DC: Exactly. [0:02:11.7] JS: Dad, the entire global economy is just taking a total hit. [0:02:15.8] SL: Exactly, right. [0:02:17.2] DC: I frequently tell people that my first distributed system that I ever had a real understanding of was the network, you know? It’s interesting because it kind of like, relies on the premises that I think a good distributed system should in that there is some autonomy to each of the systems, right? They are dependent on each other or even are inter communicate with each other but fundamentally, like when you look at routers and things like that, they are autonomous in their own way. There’s work that they do exclusive to the work that others do and exclusive to their dependencies which I think is very interesting. [0:02:50.6] SL: I think the fact that the network is a distributed system and I’m glad you said that Duffie, I think the fact the network is a distributed system is what most people overlook when they start sort of blaming the network, right? Let’s face it, in the diagrams, right, the network’s always just this blob, right? Here’s the network, right? It’s this thing, this one singular thing. When in reality, what we have are like 10 or hundreds of devices with the state of the network as a system, distributed in little bitty pieces across all of these devices. And no way, aside from logging in to each one of these devices are we able to assemble what the overall state is, right? Even routing protocols mean, their entire purpose is to assemble some sort of common understanding of what the state of the network is. Melding together, not just IP addresses which are these abstract concept but physical addresses and physical connections. And trying to reason to make decisions about them, how we center across and it’s far more complex and a lot of people understand, I think that’s why it’s just like the network is down, right? When reality, it’s probably something else entirely. [0:03:58.1] DC: Yeah, absolutely. Another good point to bring up is that each of these distributed pieces of this distributed system are in themselves like basically like just a computer. A lot of times, I’ve talked to people and they were like, “Well, the router is something special.” And I’m like, “Not really. Technically, a Linux box could just be a router if you have enough ports that you plug into it. Or it could be a switch if you needed to, just plug in ports.” [0:04:24.4] NL: Another good interesting parallel there is like when we talk about like routing protocols which are a way of – a way that allow configuration changes to particular components within that distributed system to be known about by other components within that distributed system. I think there’s an interesting parallel here between the way that works and the way that configuration patterns that we have for distributed systems work, right? If you wanted to make a configuration only change to a set of applications that make up some distributed system, you might go about like leveraging Ansible or one of the many other configuration models for this. I think it’s interesting because it represents sort of an evolution of that same idea in that you’re making it so that each of the components is responsible for informing the other components of the change, rather than taking the outside approach of my job is to actually push a change that should be known about by all of these concepts, down to them. Really, it’s an interesting parallel. What do you all think of that? [0:05:22.2] SL: I don’t know, I’m not sure. I’d have to process that for a bit. But I mean, are you saying like the interesting thought here is that in contrast to typical systems management where we push configuration out to something, using a tool like an Ansible, whatever, these things are talking amongst themselves to determine state? [0:05:41.4] DC: Yeah, it’s like, there are patterns for this like inside of distributed systems today, things like Kafka and you know, Kafka and Gossip protocol, stuff like this actually allows all of the components of a particular distributed system to understand the common state or things that would be shared across them and if you think about them, they’re not all that different from a routing protocol, right? Like the goal being that you give the systems the ability to inform the other systems in some distributed system of the changes that they may have to react to. Another good example of this one, which I think is interesting is like, what they call – when you have a feature behind a flag, right? You might have some distributed configuration model, like a Redis cache or database somewhere that you’ve actually – that you’ve held the running configuration of this distributed system. And when you want to turn on this particular feature flag, you want all of the components that are associated with that feature flag to enable that new capability. Some of the patterns for that are pretty darn close to the way that routing protocol models work. [0:06:44.6] SL: Yeah, I see what you're saying. Actually, that’ makes a lot of sense. I mean, if we think about things like Gossip protocols or even consensus protocols like Raft, right? They are similar to routing protocols in that they are responsible for distributing state and then coming to an agreement on what that state is across the entire system. And we even apply terms like convergence to both environments like we talk about how long it takes routing protocol to converge. And we might also talk about how long it takes for and ETCD cluster to converge after changing the number of members in the cluster of that nature. The point at which everybody in that distributed system, whether it be the network ETCD or some other system comes to the same understanding of what that shared state is. [0:07:33.1] DC: Yeah, I think that’s a perfect breakdown, honestly. Pretty much every routing technology that’s out there. You know, if you’re taking that – the computer of the network, you know, it takes a while but eventually, everyone will reconcile the fact that, “Yeah, that node is gone now.” [0:07:47.5] NL: I think one thing that’s interesting and I don’t know how much of a parallel there is in this one but like as we consider these systems like with modern systems that we’re building at scale, frequently we can make use of things like eventual consistency in which it’s not required per se for a transaction to be persisted across all of the components that it would affect immediately. Just that they eventually converge, right? Whereas with the network, not so much, right? The network needs to be right now and every time and there’s not really a model for eventually consistent networks, right? [0:08:19.9] SL: I don’t know. I would contend that there is a model for eventually consistent networks, right? Certainly not on you know, most organizations, relatively simple, local area networks, right? But even if we were to take it and look at something like a Clos fabric, right, where we have top of rack switches and this is getting too deep for none networking blokes that we know, right? Where you take top of rack switches that are talking layer to the servers below them or the end point below them. And they’re talking layer three across a multi-link piece up to the top, right? To the spine switches, so you have leaf switches, talking up spine switches, they’re going to have multiple uplinks. If one of those uplinks goes down, it doesn’t really matter if the rest off that fabric knows that that link is down because we have the SQL cost multi pathing going across that one, right? In a situation like that, that fabric is eventually consistent in that it’s okay if you know, knee dropping link number one of leaf A up to spine A is down and the rest of the system doesn’t know about that yet. But, on the other hand, if you are looking at network designs where convergence is being handled on active standby links or something of that nature or there aren’t enough paths to get from point A to point B until convergence happens then yes, you’re right. I think it kind of comes down to network design and the underlying architecture and there are so many factors that affect that and so many designs over the years that it’s hard to – I would agree and from the perspective of like if you have an older network and it’s been around for some period of time, right? You probably have one that is not going to be tolerant, a link being down like it will cause problems. [0:09:58.4] NL: Adds another really great parallel in software development, I think. Another great example of that, right? If we consider for a minute like the circuit breaking pattern or even like you know, most load balancer patterns, right? In which you have some way of understanding a list of healthy end points behind the load balancer and were able to react when certain end points are no longer available. I don’t consider that a pattern that I would relate to specifically if they consent to eventual consistency. I feel like that still has to be immediate, right? We have to be able to not send the new transaction to the dead thing. That has to stop immediately, right? It does in most routing patterns that are described by multi path, there is a very time sensitive mechanism that allows for the re-dispersal of that traffic across known paths that are still good. And the work, the amazing amount of work that protocol architects and network engineers go through to understand just exactly how the behavior of those systems will work. Such that we don’t see traffic. Black hole in the network for a period of time, right? If we don’t send traffic to the trash when we know or we have for a period of time, while things converge is really has a lot going for it. [0:11:07.0] SL: Yeah, I would agree. I think the interesting thing about discussing eventual consistency with regards to the networking is that even if we take a relatively simple model like the DOD model where we only have four layers to contend with, right? We don’t have to go all the way to this seven-layer OSI model. But even if we take a simple layer like the DOD four-layer model, we could be talking about the rapid response of a device connected at layer two but the less than rapid response of something operating at layer three or layer four, right? In the case of a network where we have these discreet layers that are intentionally loosely coupled which is another topic, we could talk about from a distribution perspective, right? We have these layers that are intentionally loosely coupled, we might even see consistency and the application of the cap theorem, behave differently at different layers of their model. [0:12:04.4] DC: That’s right. I think it’s fascinating like how much parallel there is here. As you get into like you know, deep architectures around software, you’re thinking of these things as it relates to like these distributed systems, especially as you’re moving toward more cloud native systems in which you start employing things like control theory and thinking about the behaviours of those systems both in aggregate like you know, some component of my application, can I scale this particular component horizontally or can I not, how am I handling state. So many of those things have parallels to the network that I feel like it kind of highlights I’m sure what everybody has heard a million times, you know, that there’s nothing new under the sun. There’s million things that we could learn from things that we’ve done in the past. [0:12:47.0] NL: Yeah, totally agree. I recently have been getting more and more development practice and something that I do sometimes is like draw out like how all of my functions and my methods, and take that in rack with each other across a consisting code base and lo and behold when I draw everything out, it sure does look a lot like a network diagram. All these things have to flow together in a very specific way and you expect the kind of returns that you’re looking for. It looks exactly the same, it’s kind of the – you know, how an atom kind of looks like a galaxy from our diagram? All these things are extrapolated across like – [0:13:23.4] SL: Yeah, totally. [0:13:24.3] NL: Different models. Or an atom looks like a solar system which looks like a galaxy. [0:13:28.8] SL: Nicholas, you said your network administrator at Boeing? [0:13:30.9] NL: I was, I was a network engineer at Boeing. [0:13:34.0] SL: You know, as you were sitting there talking, Duffie, so, I thought back to you Nick, I think all the times, I have a personal passion for helping people continue to grow and evolve in their career and not being stuck. I talk to a lot of networking folks, probably dating because of my involvement, back in the NSX team, right? But folks being like, “I’m just a network engineer, there’s so much for me to learn if I have to go learn Kubernetes, I wouldn’t even know where to start.” This discussion to me underscores the fact that if you understand how a network is a distributed system and how these theories apply to a network, then you can extrapolate those concepts and apply them to something like Kubernetes or other distributed systems, right? Immediately begin to understand, okay. Well, you know, this is how these pieces talk to each other, this is how they come, the consensus, this is where the state is stored, this is how they understand and exchange date, I got this. [0:14:33.9] NL: if you want to go down that that path, the controlled plane of your cluster is just like your central routing back bone and then the kublets themselves are just your edge switches going to each of your individual smaller network and then the pods themselves have been nodes inside of the network, right? You can easily – look at that, holy crap, it looks exactly the same. [0:14:54.5] SL: Yeah, that’s a good point. [0:14:55.1] DC: I mean, another interesting part, when you think about how we characterize systems, like where we learn that, where that skillset comes from. You raise a very good point. I think it’s an easier – maybe slightly easier thing to learn inside of networking, how to characterize that particular distributed system because of the way the components themselves are laid out and in such a common way. Where when we start looking at different applications, we find a myriad of different patterns with particular components that may behave slightly differently depending, right? Like there are different patterns within software like almost on per application bases whereas like with networks, they’re pretty consistently applied, right? Every once in a while, they’ll be kind of like a new pattern that emerges, that it just changes the behavior a little bit, right? Or changes the behavior like a lot but at the same time, consistently across all of those things that we call data center networks or what have you. To learn to troubleshoot though, I think the key part of this is to be able to spend the time and the effort to actually understand that system and you know, whether you light that fire with networking or whether you light that fire with like just understanding how to operationalize applications or even just developing and architecting them, all of those things come into play I think. [0:16:08.2] NL: I agree. I’m actually kind of curious, the three of us have been talking quite a bit about networking from the perspective that we have which is more infrastructure focused. But Josh, you have more of a developer focused background, what’s your interaction and understanding of the network and how it plays? [0:16:24.1] JS: Yeah, I’ve always been a consumer of the network. It’s something that is sat behind an API and some library, right? I call out to something that makes a TCP connection or an http interaction and then things just happen. I think what’s really interesting hearing talk and especially the point about network engineers getting into thee distributed system space is that I really think that as we started to put infrastructure behind API’s and made it more and more accessible to people like myself, app developers and programmers, we started – by we, you know, I’m obviously generalizing here. But we started owning more and more of the infrastructure. When I go into teams that are doing big Kubernetes deployments, it’s pretty rare, that’s the conventional infrastructure and networking teams that are standing up distributed systems, Kubernetes or not, right? It's a lot of times, a bunch of app developers who have maybe what we call dev-ops, whatever that means but they have an application development background, they understand how they interact with API’s, how to write code that respects or interacts with their infrastructure and they’re standing up these systems and I think one of the gaps of that really creates is a lot of people including myself just hearing you all talk, we don’t understand networking at that level. When stuff falls over and it’s either truly the network or it’s getting blamed on the network, it’s often times, just because we truly don’t understand a lot of these things, right? Encapsulation, meshes, whatever it might be, we just don’t understand these concepts at a deep level and I think if we had a lot more people with network engineering backgrounds, shifting into the distributed system space. It would alleviate a bit of that, right? Bringing more understanding into the space that we work in nowadays. [0:18:05.4] DC: I wonder if maybe it also would be a benefit to have like more cross discussions like this one between developers and infrastructure kind of focused people, because we’re starting to see like as we’re crossing boundaries, we see that the same things that we’re doing on the infrastructure side, you’re also doing in the developer side. Like cap theorem as Scott mention which is the idea that you can have two out of three of consistency, availability and partitioning. That also applies to networking in a lot of ways. You can only have a network that is either like consistent or available but it can’t handle partitioning. It can be a consistent to handle partitioning but it’s not always going to be available, that sort of thing. These things that apply in from the software perspective also apply to us but we think about them as being so completely different. [0:18:52.5] JS: Yeah, I totally agree. I really think like on the app side, a couple of years ago, you know, I really just didn’t care anything outside of the JVM like my stuff on the JVM and if it got out to the network layer of the host like just didn’t care, know, need to know about that at all. But ever since cloud computing and distributed systems and everything became more prevalent, the overlap has become extremely obvious, right? In all these different concepts and it’s been really interesting to try to ramp up on that. [0:19:19.6]:19.3] NNL: Yeah, I think you know Scott and I both do this. I think as I imagine, actually, this is true of all four of us to be honest. But I think that it’s really interesting when you are out there talking to people who do feel like they’re stuck in some particular role like they’re specialists in some particular area and we end up having the same discussion with them over and over again. You know, like, “Look, that may pay the bills right now but it’s not going to pay the bills in the future.” And so you know, the question becomes, how can you, as a network engineer take your skills forward and not feel as though you’re just going to have to like learn everything all over again. I think that one of the things that network engineers are pretty decent at is characterizing those systems and being able to troubleshoot them and being able to do it right now and being able to like firefight those capabilities and those skills are incredibly valuable in the software development and in operationalizing applications and in SRE models. I mean, all of those skills transfer, you know? If you’re out there and you’re listening and you feel like I will always be a network engineer, consider that you could actually take those skills forward into some other role if you chose to. [0:20:25.1] JS: Yeah, totally agree. I mean, look at me, the lofty career that I’ve been come to. [0:20:31.4] SL: You know, I would also say that the fascinating thing to me and one of the reasons I launched, I don’t say this to like try and plug it but just as a way of talking about the reason I launched my own podcast which is now part of packet pushers, was exploring this very space and that is like we’ve got folks like Josh who comes from the application development spacing is now being, you know, in a way, forced to own and understand more infrastructure and we’ve got the infrastructure folks who now in a way, whether it be through the rise of cloud computing and abstractions away from visible items are being forced kind of up the stack and so they’re coming together and this idea of what does the future of the folks that are kind of like in our space, what does that look like? How much longer does a network engineer really need to be deeply versed in all the different layers? Because everything’s been abstracted away by some other type of thing whether it’s VPC’s or Azure V Nets or whatever the case is, right? I mean, you’ve got companies bringing the VPC model to on premises networks, right? As API’s become more prevalent, as everything gets sort of abstracted away, what does the future look like, what are the most important skills and it seems to me that it’s these concepts that we’re talking about, right? This idea of distributed systems and how distributed systems behave and how the components react to one another and understanding things like the cap theorem that are going to be most applicable rather than the details of trouble shooting VGP or understanding AWS VPC’s or whatever the case may be. [0:22:08.5] NL: I think there is always going to be a place for the people who know how things are running under the hood from like a physical layer perspective, that sort of thing, there’s always going to be the need for the grave beards, right? Even in software development, we still have the people who are slinging kernel code in C. And you know, they’re the best, we salute you but that is not something that I’m interested in it for sure. We always need someone there to pick up the pieces as it were. I think that yeah, having just being like, I’m a Cisco guy, I’m a Juniper guy, you know? I know how to pawn that or RSH into the switch and execute these commands and suddenly I’ve got this port is now you know, trunk to this V neck crap, I was like, Nick, remember your training, you know? How to issue those commands, I wonder, I think that that isn’t necessarily going away but it will be less in demand in the future. [0:22:08.5] SL: I’m curious to hear Josh’s perspective as like having to own more and more of the infrastructure underneath like what seems to be the right path forward for those folks? [0:23:08.7] JS: Yeah, I mean, unfortunately, I feel like a lot of times, it just ends up being trial by fire and it probably shouldn’t be that. But the amount of times that I have seen a deployment of some technology fall over because we overlapped the site range or something like that is crazy. Because we just didn’t think about it or really understand it that well. You know, like using one protocol, you just described BGP. I never ever dreamt of what BGP was until I started using attributed systems, right? Started using BGP as a way to communicate routes and the amount off times that I’ve messed up that connection because I don’t have a background in how to set that up appropriately, it’s been rough. I guess my perspective is that the technology has gotten better overall and I’m mostly obviously in the Kubernetes space, speaking to the technologies around a lot of the container networking solutions but I’m sure this is true overall. It seems like a lot of the sharp edges have been buffed out quite a bit and I have less of an opportunity to do things terribly wrong. I’ve also noticed for what it’s worth, a lot of folks that have my kind of background or going out to like the AWS is the Azure’s of the world. They’re using all these like, abstracted networking technologies that allow t hem to do really cool stuff without really having to understand how it works and they’re often times going back to their networking team on prem when they have on prem requirements and being like it should be this easy or XY and Z and they’re almost like pushing the networking team to modernize that and make things simpler. Based on experiences they’re having with these cloud providers. [0:24:44.2] DC: Yeah, what do you mean I can’t create a load balancer that crosses between these two disparate data centers as it easily is. Just issuing a single command. Doesn’t this just exist from a networking standpoint? Even just the idea that you can issue an API command and get a load balancer, just that idea alone, the thousands of times I have heard that request in my career. [0:25:08.8] JS: And like the actual work under the hood to get that to work properly is it’s a lot, there’s a lot of stuff going on. [0:25:16.5] SL: Absolutely, yeah, [0:25:17.5] DC: Especially when you’re into plumbing, you know? If you’re going to create a load balancer with API, well then, what API does the load balancer use to understand where to send that traffic when it’s being balanced. How do you handle discovery, how do you hit like – obviously, yeah, there’s no shortage on the amount of work there. [0:25:36.0] JS: Yeah. [0:25:36.3] DC: That’s a really good point, I mean, I think sometimes it’s easy for me to think about some of these API driven networking models and the cost that come with them, the hidden cost that come with them. An example of this is, if you’re in AWS and you have a connectivity between wo availability, actually could be any cloud, it doesn’t have to be an AWS, right? If you have connectivity between two different availability zones and you’re relying on that to be reliable and consistent and definitely not to experience, what tools do you have at your disposal, what guarantees do you have that that network has even operating in a way that is responsive, right? And in a way, this is kind of taking us towards the observability conversation that I think we’ve talked a little bit about the past. Because I think it highlights the same set of problems again, right? You have to understand, you have to be able to provide the consumers of any service, whether that service is plumbing, whether it’s networking, whether it’s your application that you’ve developed that represents a set of micro service. You have to provide everybody a way or you know, have to provide the people who are going to answer the phone at two in the morning. Or even the robots that are going to answer the phone at two in the morning. I have to provide them some mechanism by which to observe those systems as they are in use. [0:26:51.7] JS: I’m not convinced that very many of the cloud providers do that terribly well today, you know? I feel like I’ve been burned in the past without actually having an understanding of the state that we’re in and so it is interesting maybe the software development team can actually start pushing that down toward the networking vendors out there out in the world. [0:27:09.9] NL: Yeah that would be great. I mean I have been recently using a managed Kubernetes service. I have been kicking the tires on it a little bit. And yeah there has been a couple of times where I had just been got by networking issues. I am not going to get into what I have seen in a container network interface or any of the technologies around that. We are going to talk about that another time. But the CNI that I am using in this managed service was just so wonky and weird. And it was failing from a network standpoint. The actual network was failing in a sense because the IP addresses for the nodes themselves or the pods wasn’t being released properly and because of our bag. And so, the rules associated with my account could not remove IP addresses from a node in the network because it wasn’t allowed to and so from a network, I ran out of IP addresses in my very small site there. [0:28:02.1] SL: And this could happen in database, right? This could happen in a cache of information, this could happen in pretty much the same pattern that you are describing is absolutely relevant in both of these fields, right? And that is a fascinating thing about this is that you know we talk about the network generally in these nebulous terms and that it is like a black box and I don’t want them to know anything about it. I want to learn about it, I don’t want to understand it. I just want to be able to consume it via an API and I want to have the expectation that everything will work the way it is supposed to. I think it is fascinating that on the other side of that API are people maybe just like you who are doing their level best to provide, to chase the cap theorum into it’s happy end and figure out how to actually give you what you need out of that service, you know? So, empathy I think is important. [0:28:50.4] NL: Absolutely, to bring that to an interesting thought that I just had where on both sides of this chasm or whatever it is between networking and develop, the same principles exists like we have been saying but just to elicited on it a little bit more, it’s like on one side you have like I need to make sure that these ETCD nodes communicate with each other and that the data is consistent across the other ones. So, we use a protocol called RAFT, right? And so that’s eventually existent tool then that information is sent onto a network, which is probably using OSPF, which is “open shortest path first” routing protocol to become eventually consistent on the data getting from one point to the other by opening the shortest path possible. And so these two things are very similar. They are both these communication protocols, which is I mean that is what protocol means, right? The center for communication but they’re just so many different layers. Obviously of the OSI model but people don’t put them together but they really are and we keep coming back to that where it is all the same thing but we think about it so differently. And I am actually really appreciating this conversation because now I am having a galaxy brain moment like boo. [0:30:01.1] SL: Another really interesting one like another galaxy moment, I think that is interesting is if you think about – so let us break them down like TCP and UTP. These are interesting patterns that actually do totally relate again just in software patterns, right? In TCP the guarantee is that every data gram, if you didn’t get the entire data gram you will understand that you are missing data and you will request a new version of that same packet. And so, you can provide consistency in the form of retries or repeats if things don’t work, right? Not dissimilar from the ability to understand like that whether you chuck some in data across the network or like in a particular data base, if you make a query for a bunch of information you have to have some way of understanding that you got the most recent version of it, right? Or ETCD supports us by using the revision by understanding what revision you received last or whether that is the most recent one. And other software patterns kind of follow the same model and I think that is also kind of interesting. Like we are still using the same primitive tools to solve the same problems whether we are doing it at a software application layer or whether we are doing it down in the plumbing at the network there, these tools are still very similar. Another example is like UTP where it is basically there are no repeats. You either got the packet or you didn’t, which sounds a lot like an event stream to me in some ways, right? Like it is very interesting, you just figured out like I put in on the line, you didn’t get it? It is okay, I will put another line here in a minute you can react to that one, right? It is an interesting overlap. [0:31:30.6] NL: Yeah, totally. [0:31:32.9] JS: Yeah, the comparison to event streams or message queues, right? There is an interesting one that I hadn’t considered before but yeah, there are certainly parallels between saying, “Okay I am going to put this on the message queue,” and wait for the acknowledgement that somebody has taken it and taken ownership of it as oppose to an event stream where it is like this happened. I admit this event. If you get it and you do something with it, great. If you don’t get it then you don’t do something with it, great because another event is going to come along soon. So, there you go. [0:32:02.1] DC: Yep, I am going to go down a weird topic associated with what we are just talking about. But I am going to get a little bit more into the weeds of networking and this is actually directed into us in a way. So, talking about the kind of parallels between networking and development, in networking at least with TCP and networking, there is something called CSMACD, which is “carry your sense multi,” oh I can’t remember what the A stands for and the CD. [0:32:29.2] SL: Access. [0:32:29.8] DC: Multi access and then CD is collision detection and so basically what that means is whenever you sent out a packet on the network, the network device itself is listening on the network for any collisions and if it detects a collision it will refuse to send a packet until a certain period of time and they will do a retry to make sure that these packets are getting sent as efficiently as possible. There is an alternative to that called CMSCA, which was used by Mac before they switched over to using a Linux based operating system. And then putting a fancy UI in front of it, which collision avoidance would listen and try and – I can’t remember exactly, it would time it differently so that it would totally just avoid any chance that there could be collision. It would make sure that no packets were being sent right then and then send it back up. And so I was wondering if something like that exists in the realm between the communication path between applications. [0:33:22.5] JS: Is it collision two of the same packets being sent or what exactly is that? [0:33:26.9] DC: With the packets so basically any data going back and forth. [0:33:29.7] JS: What makes it a collision? [0:33:32.0] SL: It is the idea that you can only transmit one message at a time because if they both populate the same media it is trash, both of them are trash. [0:33:39.2] JS: And how do you qualify that. Do you receive an ac from the system or? [0:33:42.8] NL: No there is just nothing returned essentially so it is like literally like the electrical signals going down the wire. They physically collide with each other and then the signal breaks. [0:33:56.9] JS: Oh, I see, yeah, I am not sure. I think there is some parallels to that maybe with like queuing technologies and things like that but can’t think of anything on like direct app dev side. [0:34:08.6] DC: Okay, anyway sorry for that tangent. I just wanted to go down that little rabbit-hole a little bit. It was like while we are talking about networking, I was like, “Oh yeah, I wanted to see how deep down we can make this parallel going?” so that was the direction I went. [0:34:20.5] SL: Like where is that that CSMACD, a piece is like seriously old school, right? Because it only applied to half duplex Ethernet and as soon as we went to full duplex Ethernet it didn’t matter anymore. [0:34:33.7] DC: That is true. I totally forgot about that. [0:34:33.8] JS: It applied the satellite with all of these as well. [0:34:35.9] DC: Yeah, I totally forgot about that. Yeah and with full duplex, we totally just space on that. This is – damn Scott, way to make me feel old. [0:34:45.9] SL: Well I mean satellite stuff, too, right? I mean it is actually any shared media upon which you have to – where if this stuff goes and overlap there, you are not going to be able to make it work right? And so, I mean it is interesting. It is actually an interesting PNL. I am struggling to think of an example of this as well. I mean my brain is going towards circuit breaking but I don’t think that that is quite the same thing. It is sort the same thing that in a circuit breaking pattern, the application that is making the request has the ability obviously because it is the thing making the request to understand that the target it is trying to connect to is not working correctly. And so, it is able to make an almost instantaneous decision or at least a very shortly, a very timely decision about what to do when it detects that state. And so that’s a little similar and that you can and from the requester side you can do things if you see things going awry. And really and in reality, in the circuit breaking pattern we are making the assumption that only the application making the request will ever get that information fast enough to react to it. [0:35:51.8] JS: Yeah where my head was kind of going with it but I think it is pretty off is like on a low level piece of code like it is maybe something you write in C where you implement your own queue in that area and then multiple threads are firing off the same time and there is no block system or mechanism if two threads contend to put something in the same memory space that that queue represents. That is really going down the rabbit hole. I can’t even speak to what degree that is possible in modern programming but that is where my head was. [0:36:20.3] NL: Yeah that is a good point. [0:36:21.4] SL: Yeah, I think that is actually a pretty good analogy because the key commonality here is some sort of shared access, right? Multiple threads accessing the same stack or memory buffer. The other thing that came to mind to me was like some sort of session multiplexing, right? Where you are running multiple application layer sessions inside a single sort of network connection and those network sessions getting comingled in some fashion. Whether through identifiers or sequence number or something else of that nature and therefore, you know garbling the ultimate communication that is trying to be sent. [0:36:59.2] DC: Yeah, locks are exactly the right direction, I think. [0:37:03.6] NL: That is a very good point. [0:37:05.2] DC: Yeah, I think that makes perfect sense. Good, all right. Yes, we nailed it. [0:37:09.7] SL: Good job. [0:37:10.8] DC: Can anybody here think of a software pattern that maybe doesn’t come across that way? When you are thinking about some of the patterns that you see today in cloud native applications, is there a counter example, something that the network does not do at all? [0:37:24.1] NL: That is interesting. I am trying to think where event streams. No, that is just straight up packets. [0:37:30.7] JS: I feel like we should open up one of those old school Java books of like 9,000 design patterns you need to know and we should go one by one and be like, “What about this” you know? There is probably something I can’t think of it off the top of my head. [0:37:43.6] DC: Yeah me neither. I was trying to think of it. I mean like I can think of a myriad of things that do cross over even the idea of only locally relevant state, right? That is like a cam table on a switch that is only locally relevant because once you get outside of that switching domain it doesn’t matter anymore and it is like there is a ton of those things that totally do relate, you know? But I am really struggling to come up with one that doesn’t – One thing that is actually interesting is I was going to bring up – we mentioned the cap theorem and it is an interesting one that you can only pick like two and three of consistency availability and partition tolerance. And I think you know, when I think about the way that networks solve or try to address this problem, they do it in some pretty interesting way. It’s like if you were to consider like Spanning Tree, right? The idea that there can really only be one path through a series of broadcast domains. Because we have multiple paths then obviously we are going to get duplicity and the things are going to get bad because they are going to have packets that are addressed the same things across and you are going to have all kinds of bad behaviors, switching loops and broadcast storms and all kinds of stuff like that and so Spanning Tree came along and Spanning Tree was invented by an amazing woman engineer who created it to basically ensure that there was only one path through a set of broadcast domains. And in a way, this solved that camp through them because you are getting to the point where you said like since I understand that for availability purpose, I only need one path through the whole thing and so to ensure consistency, I am going to turn off the other paths and to allow for partition tolerance, I am going to enable the system to learn when one of those paths is no longer viable so that it can re-enable one of the other paths. Now the challenge of course is there is a transition period in which we lose traffic because we haven’t been able to open one of those other paths fast enough, right? And so, it is interesting to think about how the network is trying to solve with the part that same set of problems that is described by the cap theorem that we see people trying to solve with software routine. [0:39:44.9] SL: No man I totally agree. In a case like Spanning Tree, you are sacrificing availability essentially for consistency and partition tolerance when the network achieves consistency then availability will be restored and there is other ways to doing that. So as we move into systems like I mentioned clos fabrics earlier, you know a cost fabric is a different way of establishing a solution to that and that is saying I’d later too. I will have multiple connections. I will wait those connections using the higher-level protocol and I will sacrifice consistency in terms of how the routes are exchanged to get across that fabric in exchange for availability and partition columns. So, it is a different way of solving the same problem and using a different set of tools to do that, right? [0:40:34.7] DC: I personally find it funny that in the cap theorem there is at no point do we mention complexity, right? We are just trying to get all three and we don’t care if it’s complex. But at the same time, as a consumer of all of these systems, you care a lot about the complexity. I hear it all the time. Whether that complexity is in a way that the API itself works or whether even in this episode we are talking about like I maybe don’t want to learn how to make the network work. I am busy trying to figure out how to make my application work, right? Like cognitive load is a thing. I can only really focus on so many things at a time where am I going to spend my time? Am I going to spend it learning how to do plumbing or am I going to spend it actually trying the right application that solves my business problem, right? It is an interesting thing. [0:41:17.7] NL: So, with the rise of software defined networking, how did that play into the adoption of cloud native technologies? [0:41:27.9] DC: I think it is actually one of the more interesting overlaps in the space because I think to Josh’s point again. his is where we were taking I mean I work for a company called [inaudible 0:41:37], in which we were virtualizing the network and this is fascinating because effectively we are looking at this as a software service that we had to bring up and build and build reliably and scalable. Reliably and consistently and scalable. We want to create this all while we are solving problems. But we need it to do within an API. It is like we couldn’t make the assumption with the way that networks were being defined today like going to each component and configuring them or using protocols was actually going to work in this new model of software confined networking. And so, we had an incredible amount of engineers who were really focused from a computer science perspective on how to effectively reinvent network as a software solution. And I do think that there is a huge amount of cross over here like this is actually where I think the waters meet between the way the developers think about the problems and the way that network engineers think about the problem but it has been a rough road I will say. I will say that STN I think is actually has definitely thrown a lot of network engineers under their heels because they’re like, “Wait, wait but that is not a network,” you know? Because I can’t actually look at it and characterize it in the way that I am accustomed to looking at characterizing the other networks that I play with. And then from the software side, you’re like, “Well maybe that is okay” right? Maybe that is enough, it is really interesting. [0:42:57.5] SL: You know I don’t know enough about the details of how AWS or Azure or Google are actually doing their networking like and I don’t even know and maybe you guys all do know – but I don’t even know that aside from a few tidbits here and there that AWS is going to even divulge the details of how things work under the covers for VPC’s right? But I can’t imagine that any modern cloud networking solution whether it would be VBPC’s or VNET’s or whatever doesn’t have a significant software to find aspect to it. You know, we don’t need to get into the definitions of what STN is or isn’t. That was a big discussion Duffie and I had six years ago, right? But there has to be some part of it that is taking and using the concepts that are common in STN right? And applying that. Just as the same way as the cloud vendors are using the concepts from compute virtualization to enable what they are doing. I mean like the reality is that you know the work that was done by the Cambridge folks on Zen was a massive enabler trade for AWS, right? The word done on KVM also a massive enabler for lots of people. I think GCP is KBM based and V Sphere where VM Ware data as well. I mean all of this stuff was a massive enablers for what we do with compute virtualization in the cloud. I have to think that whether it is – even if it wasn’t necessarily directly stemming out of Martin Casado’s open flow work at Stanford, right? That a lot of these software define networking concepts are still seeing use in the modern clouds these days and that is what enables us to do things like issue an API call and have an isolated network space with its own address space and its own routing and satiated in some way and managed. [0:44:56.4] JS: Yeah and on that latter point, you know as a consumer of this new software defined nature of networking, it is amazing the amount of I don’t know, I started using like a blanket marketing term here but agility that it is added, right? Because it has turned all of these constructs that I used to file a ticket and follow up with people into self-service things that when I need to poke holes in the network, hopefully the rights are locked down, so I just can’t open it all up. Assuming I know what I am doing and the rights are correct it is totally self-service for me. I go into AWS, I change the security group roll and boom, the ports have changed and it never looked like that prior to this full takeover of what I believe is STN almost end to end in the case of AWS and so on. So, it is really just not only has it made people like myself have to understand more about networking but it has allowed us to self-service a lot of the things. That I would imagine most network engineers were probably tired of doing anyways, right? How many times do you want to go to that firewall and open up that port? Are you really that excited about that? I would imagine not so. [0:45:57.1] NL: Well I can only speak from experience and I think a lot of network engineers kind of get into that field because it really love control. And so, they want to know what these ports are that are opening and it is scary to be like this person has opened up these ports, “Wait what?” Like without them even totally knowing. I mean I was generalizing, I was more so speaking to myself as being self-deprecating. It doesn’t apply to you listener. [0:46:22.9] JS: I mean it is a really interesting point though. I mean do you think it makes the networking people or network engineers maybe a little bit more into the realm of observability and like knowing when to trigger when something has gone wrong? Does it make them more reactive in their role I guess. Or maybe self-service is not as common as I think it is. It is just from my point of view, it seems like with STN’s the ability to modify the network more power has been put into the developers’ hands is how I look at it, you know? [0:46:50.7] DC: I definitely agree with that. It is interesting like if we go back a few years there was a time when all of us in the room here I think are employed by VMware. So, there was a time where VMware’s thing was like the real value or one of the key values that VMware brought to the table was the idea that a developer come and say “Give me 10 servers.” And you could just call an API or make it or you could quickly provision those 10 servers on behalf of that developer and hand them right back. You wouldn’t have to go out and get 10 new machines and put them into a rack, power them and provision them and go through that whole process that you could actually just stamp those things out, right? And that is absolutely parallel to the network piece as well. I mean if there is nothing else that SPN did bring to the fore is that, right? That you can get that same capability of just stamping up virtual machines but with networks that the API is important in almost everything we do. Whether it is a service that you were developing, whether it is a network itself, whether it is the firewall that we need to do these things programmatically. [0:47:53.7] SL: I agree with you Duffie. Although I would contend that the one area that and I will call it on premises STN shall we say right? Which is the people putting on STN solutions. I’d say the one area at least in my observation that they haven’t done well is that self-service model. Like in the cloud, self-service is paramount to Josh’s point. They can go out there, they can create their own BPC’s, create their own sub nets, create their own NAT gateways, Internet gateways to run security groups. Load balancers, blah-blah, all of that right? But it still seems to me that even though we are probably 90, 95% of the way there, maybe farther in terms of on premise STN solutions right that you still typically don’t see self-service being pushed out in the same way you would in the public cloud, right? That is almost the final piece that is needed to bring that cloud experience to the on-premises environment. [0:48:52.6] DC: That is an interesting point. I think from an infrastructure as a service perspective, it falls into that realm. It is a problem to solve in that space, right? So when you look at things like OpenStack and things like AWS and things like JKE or not JKE but GCE and areas like that, it is a requirement that if you are going to provide infrastructure as a service that you provide some capability around networking but at the same time, if we look at some of the platforms that are used for things like cloud native applications. Things like Kubernetes, what is fascinating about that is that we have agreed on a least come – we agreed on abstraction of networking that is maybe I don’t know, maybe a little more precooked you know what I mean? In the assumption within like most of the platforms as a service that I have seen, the assumption is that when I deploy a container or I deploy a pod or I deploy some function as a service or any of these things that the networking is going to be handled for me. I shouldn’t have to think about whether it is being routed to the Internet or not or routed back and forth between these domains. I should if anything only have to actually give you intent, be able to describe to you the intent of what could be connected to this and what ports I am actually going to be exposing and that the platform actually hides all of the complexity of that network away from me, which is an interesting round to strike. [0:50:16.3] SL: So, this is one of my favorite things, one of my favorite distinctions to make, right? And that is this is the two worlds that we have been talking about, applications and infrastructure and the perfect example of these different perspectives and you even said it or you talked there Duffie like from an IS perspective it is considered a given that you have to be able to say I want a network, right? But when you come at this from the application perspective, you don’t care about a network. You just want network connectivity, right? And so, when you look at the abstractions that IS vendors and solutions or products have created then they are IS centric but when you look at the abstractions that have been created in the cloud data space like within Kubernetes, they are application centric, right? And so, we are talking about infrastructure artifacts versus application artifacts and they end up meeting but they are coming at this from two different very different perspectives. [0:51:18.5] DC: Yeah. [0:51:19.4] NL: Yeah, I agree. [0:51:21.2] DC: All right, well that was a great discussion. I imagine that we are probably get into – at least I have a couple of different networking discussions that I wanted to dig into and this conversation I hope that we’ve helped draw some parallels back and forth between the way – I mean there is both some empathy to spend here, right? I mean the people who are providing the service of networking to you in your cloud environments and your data centers are solving almost exactly the same sorts of availability problems and capabilities that you are trying to solve with your own software. And I think in itself is a really interesting takeaway. Another one is that again there is nothing new under the sun. The problems that we are trying to solve in networking are not different than the problems that you are trying to solve in applications. We have far fewer tools and we generally network engineers are focused on specific changes that happen in the industry rather than looking at a breathe of industries like I mean as Josh pointed out, you could break open a Java book. And see 8,000 patterns for how to do Java and this is true, every programming language that I am aware of I mean if you look at Go and see a bunch of different patterns there and we have talked about different patterns for just developing cloud native aware applications as well, right? I mean there is so many options in the software versus what we can do and what are available to us within networks. And so I think I am rambling a little bit but I think that is the takeaway from this session. Is that there is a lot of overlap and there is a lot of really great stuff out there. So, this is Duffie, thank you for tuning in and I look forward to the next episode. [0:52:49.9] NL: Yep and I think we can all agree that Token Ring should have won. [0:52:53.4] DC: Thank you Josh and thank you Scott. [0:52:55.8] JS: Thanks. [0:52:57.0] SL: Thanks guys, this was a blast. [END OF EPISODE] [0:52:59.4] ANNOUNCER: Thank you for listening to The Podlets Cloud Native Podcast. Find us on Twitter at https://twitter.com/ThePodlets and on the http://thepodlets.io/ website, where you'll find transcripts and show notes. We'll be back next week. Stay tuned by subscribing. [END]See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Security is inherently dichotomous because it involves hardening an application to protect it from external threats, while at the same time ensuring agility and the ability to iterate as fast as possible. This in-built tension is the major focal point of today’s show, where we talk about all things security. From our discussion, we discover that there are several reasons for this tension. The overarching problem with security is that the starting point is often rules and parameters, rather than understanding what the system is used for. This results in security being heavily constraining. For this to change, a culture shift is necessary, where security people and developers come around the same table and define what optimizing to each of them means. This, however, is much easier said than done as security is usually only brought in at the later stages of development. We also discuss why the problem of security needs to be reframed, the importance of defining what normal functionality is and issues around response and detection, along with many other security insights. The intersection of cloud native and security is an interesting one, so tune in today! Follow us: https://twitter.com/thepodlets Website: https://thepodlets.io Feeback: info@thepodlets.io https://github.com/vmware-tanzu/thepodlets/issues Hosts: Carlisia Campos Duffie Cooley Bryan Liles Nicholas Lane Key Points From This Episode: Often application and program security constrain optimum functionality. Generally, when security is talked about, it relates to the symptoms, not the root problem. Developers have not adapted internal interfaces to security. Look at what a framework or tool might be used for and then make constraints from there. The three frameworks people point to when talking about security: FISMA, NIST, and CIS. Trying to abide by all of the parameters is impossible. It is important to define what normal access is to understand what constraints look like. Why it is useful to use auditing logs in pre-production. There needs to be a discussion between developers and security people. How security with Kubernetes and other cloud native programs work. There has been some growth in securing secrets in Kubernetes over the past year. Blast radius – why understanding the extent of security malfunction effect is important. Chaos engineering is a useful framework for understanding vulnerability. Reaching across the table – why open conversations are the best solution to the dichotomy. Security and developers need to have the same goals and jargon from the outset. The current model only brings security in at the end stages of development. There needs to be a place to learn what normal functionality looks like outside of production. How Google manages to run everything in production. It is difficult to come up with security solutions for differing contexts. Why people want service meshes. Quotes: “You’re not able to actually make use of the platform as it was designed to be made use of, when those constraints are too tight.” — @mauilion [0:02:21] “The reason that people are scared of security is because security is opaque and security is opaque because a lot of people like to keep it opaque but it doesn’t have to be that way.” — @bryanl [0:04:15] “Defining what that normal access looks like is critical to us to our ability to constrain it.” — @mauilion [0:08:21] “Understanding all the avenues that you could be impacted is a daunting task.” — @apinick [0:18:44] “There has to be a place where you can go play and learn what normal is and then you can move into a world in which you can actually enforce what that normal looks like with reasonable constraints.” — @mauilion [0:33:04] “You don’t learn to ride a motorcycle on the street. You’d learn to ride a motorcycle on the dirt.” — @apinick [0:33:57] Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode: AWS — https://aws.amazon.com/Kubernetes https://kubernetes.io/IAM https://aws.amazon.com/iam/Securing a Cluster — https://kubernetes.io/docs/tasks/administer-cluster/securing-a-cluster/TGI Kubernetes 065 — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uy2V2kYl4U&list=PL7bmigfV0EqQzxcNpmcdTJ9eFRPBe-iZa&index=33&t=0sTGI Kubernetes 066 —https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-vRlW7VYio&list=PL7bmigfV0EqQzxcNpmcdTJ9eFRPBe-iZa&index=32&t=0sBitnami — https://bitnami.com/Target — https://www.target.com/Netflix — https://www.netflix.com/HashiCorp — https://www.hashicorp.com/Aqua Sec — https://www.aquasec.com/CyberArk — https://www.cyberark.com/Jeff Bezos — https://www.forbes.com/profile/jeff-bezos/#4c3104291b23Istio — https://istio.io/Linkerd — https://linkerd.io/ Transcript: EPISODE 10 [INTRODUCTION] [0:00:08.7] ANNOUNCER: Welcome to The Podlets Podcast, a weekly show that explores cloud native one buzzword at a time. Each week, experts in the field will discuss and contrast distributed systems concepts, practices, tradeoffs and lessons learned to help you on your cloud native journey. This space moves fast and we shouldn’t reinvent the wheel. If you’re an engineer, operator or technically minded decision maker, this podcast is for you. [EPISODE] [0:00:41.2] NL: Hello and welcome back to The Kubelets Podcast. My name is Nicholas Lane and this time, we’re going to be talking about the dichotomy of security. And to talk about such an interesting topic, joining me are Duffie Coolie. [0:00:54.3] DC: Hey, everybody. [0:00:55.6] NL: Bryan Liles. [0:00:57.0] BM: Hello [0:00:57.5] NL: And Carlisia Campos. [0:00:59.4] CC: Glad to be here. [0:01:00.8] NL: So, how’s it going everybody? [0:01:01.8] DC: Great. [0:01:03.2] NL: Yeah, this I think is an interesting topic. Duffie, you introduced us to this topic. And basically, what I understand, what you wanted to talk about, we’re calling it the dichotomy of security because it’s the relationship between security, like hardening your application to protect it from attack and influence from outside actors and agility to be able to create something that’s useful, the ability to iterate as fast as possible. [0:01:30.2] DC: Exactly. I mean, the idea from this came from putting together a talks for the security conference coming up here in a couple of weeks. And I was noticing that obviously, if you look at the job of somebody who is trying to provide some security for applications on their particular platform, whether that be AWS or GCE or OpenStack or Kubernetes or anything of these things. It’s frequently in their domain to kind of define constraints for all of the applications that would be deployed there, right? Such that you can provide rational defaults for things, right? Maybe you want to make sure that things can’t do a particular action because you don’t want to allow that for any application within your platform or you want to provide some constraint around quota or all of these things. And some of those constraints make total sense and some of them I think actually do impact your ability to design the systems or to consume that platform directly, right? You’re not able to actually make use of the platform as it was designed to be made use of, when those constraints are too tight. [0:02:27.1] DC: Yeah. I totally agree. There’s kind of a joke that we have in certain tech fields which is the primary responsibility of security is to halt productivity. It isn’t actually true, right? But there are tradeoffs, right? If security is too tight, you can’t move forward, right? Example of this that kind of mind are like, if you’re too tight on your firewall rules where you can’t actually use anything of value. That’s a quick example of like security gone haywire. That’s too controlling, I think. [0:02:58.2] BM: Actually. This is an interesting topic just in general but I think that before we fall prey to what everyone does when they talk about security, let’s take a step back and understand why things are the way they are. Because all we’re talking about are the symptoms of what’s going on and I’ll give you one quick example of why I say this. Things are the way they are because we haven’t made them any better. In developer land, whenever we consume external resources, what we were supposed to do and what we should be doing but what we don’t do is we should create our internal interfaces. Only program to those interfaces and then let that interface of that adapt or talk to the external service and in security world, we should be doing the same thing and we don’t do this. My canonical example for this is IAM on AWS. It’s hard to create a secure IM configuration and it’s even harder to keep it over time and it’s even harder to do it whenever you have 150, 100, 5,000 people dealing with this. What companies do is they actually create interfaces where they could describe the part of IAM they want to use and then they translate that over. The reason I bring this up is because the reason that people are scared of security is because security is opaque and security is opaque because a lot of people like to keep it opaque. But it doesn’t have to be that way. [0:04:24.3] NL: That’s a good point, that’s a reasonable design and wherever I see that devoted actually is very helpful, right? Because you highlight a critical point in that these constraints have to be understood by the people who are constrained by them, right? It will just continue to kind of like drive that wedge between the people who are responsible for them top finding t hem and the people who are being affected by them, right? That transparency, I think it’s definitely key. [0:04:48.0] BM: Right, this is our cloud native discussion, any idea of where we should start thinking about this in cloud native land? [0:04:56.0] DC: For my part, I think it’s important to understand if you can like what the consumer of a particular framework or tool might need, right? And then, just take it from there and figure out what rational constraints are. Rather than the opposite which is frequently where people go and evaluate a set of rules as defined by some particular, some third-part company. Like you look at CIS packs and you look at like a lot of these other tooling. I feel like a lot of people look at those as like, these are the hard rules, we must comply to all of these things. Legally, in some cases, that’s the case. But frequently, I think they’re just kind of like casting about for some semblance of a way to start defining constraint and they go too far, they’re no longer taking into account what the consumers of that particular platform might meet, right? Kubernetes is a great example of this. If you look at the CIS spec for Kubernetes or if you look at a lot of the talks that I’ve seen kind of around how to secure Kubernetes, we defined like best practices for security and a lot of them are incredibly restrictive, right? I think of the problem there is that restriction comes at a cost of agility. You’re no longer able to use Kubernetes as a platform for developing microservices because you provided so much constraints that it breaks the model, you know? [0:06:12.4] NL: Okay. Let’s break this down again. I can think of a top of my head, three types of things people point to when I’m thinking about security. And spoiler alert, I am going to do some acronyms but don’t worry about the acronyms are, just understand they are security things. The first one I’ll bring up is FISMA and then I’ll think about NIST and the next one is CIS like you brought up. Really, the reason they’re so prevalent is because depending on where you are, whether you’re in a highly regulated place like a bank or you’re working for the government or you have some kind of automate concern to say a PIPA or something like that. These are the words that the auditors will use with you. There is good in those because people don’t like the CIS benchmarks because sometimes, we don’t understand why they’re there. But, from someone who is starting from nothing, those are actually great, there’s at least a great set of suggestions. But the problem is you have to understand that they’re only suggestions and they are trying to get you to a better place than you might need. But, the other side of this is that, we should never start with NIST or CIS or FISMA. What we really should do is our CISO or our Chief Security Officer or the person in charge of security. Or even just our – people who are in charge, making sure our stack, they should be defining, they should be taking what they know, whether it’s the standards and they should be building up this security posture in this security document and these rules that are built to protect whatever we’re trying to do. And then, the developers of whoever else can operate within that rather than everything literally. [0:07:46.4] DC: Yeah, agreed. Another thing I’ve spent some time talking to people about like when they start rationalizing how to implement these things or even just think about the secure surface or develop a threat model or any of those things, right? One of the things that I think it’s important is the ability to define kind of like what normal looks like, right? What normal access between applications or normal access of resources looks like. I think that your point earlier, maybe provides some abstraction in front of a secure resource such that you can actually just share that same fraction across all the things that might try to consume that external resource is a great example of the thing. Defining what that normal access looks like is critical to us to our ability to constrain it, right? I think that frequently people don’t start there, they start with the other side, they’re saying, here are all the constraints, you need to tell me which ones are too tight. You need to tell me which ones to loosen up so that you can do your job. You need to tell me which application needs access to whichever application so that I can open the firewall for you. I’m like, we need to turn that on its head. We need the environments that are perhaps less secure so that we can actually define what normal looks like and then take that definition and move it into a more secured state, perhaps by defining these across different environments, right? [0:08:58.1] BM: A good example of that would be in larger organizations, at every part of the organization does this but there is environments running your application where there are really no rules applied. What we do with that is we turn on auditing in those environments so you have two applications or a single application that talks to something and you let that application run and then after the application run, you go take a look at the audit logs and then you determine at that point what a good profile of this application is. Whenever it’s in production, you set up the security parameters, whether it be identity access or network, based on what you saw in auditing in your preproduction environment. That’s all you could run because we tested it fully in our preproduction environment, it should not do any more than that. And that’s actually something – I’ve seen tools that will do it for AWS IM. I’m sure you can do for anything else that creates auditing law. That’s a good way to get started. [0:09:54.5] NL: It sounds like what we’re coming to is that the breakdown of security or the way that security has impacted agility is when people don’t take a rational look at their own use case. instead, rely too much on the guidance of other people essentially. Instead of using things like the CIS benchmarking or NIST or FISMA, that’s one that I knew the other two and I’m like, I don’t know this other one. If they follow them less as guidelines and more as like hard set rules, that’s when we get impacts or agility. Instead of like, “Hey. This is what my application needs like you’re saying, let’s go from there.” What does this one look like? Duffie is for saying. I’m kind of curious, let’s flip that on its head a little bit, are there examples of times when agility impacts security? [0:10:39.7] BM: You want to move fast and moving fast is counter to being secure? [0:10:44.5] NL: Yes. [0:10:46.0] DC: Yeah, literally every single time we run software. When it comes down to is developers are going to want to develop and then security people are going to want to secure. And generally, I’m looking at it from a developer who has written security software that a lot of people have used, you guys had know that. Really, there needs to be a conversation, it’s the same thing as we had this dev ops conversation for a year – and then over the last couple of years, this whole dev set ops conversation has been happening. We need to have this conversation because from a security person’s point of view, you know, no access is great access. No data, you can’t get owned if you don’t have any data going across the wire. You know what? Can’t get into that server if there’s no ports opened. But practically, that doesn’t work and we find is that there is actually a failing on both sides to understand what the other person was optimizing for. [0:11:41.2] BM: That’s actually where a lot of this comes from. I will offer up that the only default secure posture is no access to anything and you should be working from that direction to where you want to be rather than working from, what should we close down? You should close down everything and then you work with allowing this list for other than block list. [0:12:00.9] NL: Yeah, I agree with that model but I think that there’s an important step that has to happen before that and that’s you know, the tooling or thee wireless phone to define what the application looks like when it’s in a normal state or the running state and if we can accomplish that, then I feel like we’re in a better position to find what that LOI list looks like and I think that one of the other challenges there of course, let’s backup for a second. I have actually worked on a platform that supported many services, hundreds of services, right? Clearly, if I needed to define what normal looked like for a hundred services or a thousand services or 2,000 services, that’s going to be difficult in a way that people approach the problem, right? How do you define for each individual service? I need to have some decoration of intent. I need the developer to engage here and tell me, what they’re expecting, to set some assumptions about the application like what it’s going to connect to, those dependences are – That sort of stuff. And I also need tooling to verify that. I need to be able to kind of like build up the whole thing so that I have some way of automatically, you know, maybe with oversight, defining what that security context looks like for this particular service on this particular platform. Trying to do it holistically is actually I think where we get into trouble, right? Obviously, we can’t scale the number of people that it takes to actually understand all of these individual services. We need to actually scale this stuff as software problem instead. [0:13:22.4] CC: With the cloud native architecture and infrastructure, I wonder if it makes it more restrictive because let’s say, these are running on Kubernetes, everything is running at Kubernetes. Things are more connected because it’s a Kubernetes, right? It’s this one huge thing that you’re running on and Kubernetes makes it easier to have access to different notes and when the nodes took those apart, of course, you have to find this connection. Still, it’s supposed to make it easy. I wonder if security from a perspective of somebody, needing to put a restriction and add miff or example, makes it harder or if it makes it easier to just delegate, you have this entire area here for you and because your app is constrained to this space or name space or this part, this node, then you can have as much access as you need, is there any difference? Do you know what I mean? Does it make sense what I said? [0:14:23.9] BM: There was actually, it’s exactly the same thing as we had before. We need to make sure that applications have access to what they need and don’t have access to what they don’t need. Now, Kubernetes does make it easier because you can have network policies and you can apply those and they’re easier to manage than who knows what networking management is holding you have. Kubernetes also has pod security policies which again, actually confederates this knowledge around my pod should be able to do this or should not be able to run its root, it shouldn’t be able to do this and be able to do that. It’s still the same practice Carlisia, but the way that we can control it is now with a standard set off tools. We still have not cracked the whole nut because the whole thing of turning auditing on to understand and then having great tool that can read audit locks from Kubernetes, just still aren’t there. Just to add one more last thing that before we add VMWare and we were Heptio, we had a coworker who wrote basically dynamic audit and that was probably one of the first steps that we would need to be able to employ this at scale. We are early, early, super early in our journey and getting this right, we just don’t have all the necessary tools yet. That’s why it’s hard and that’s why people don’t do it. [0:15:39.6] NL: I do think it is nice to have t hose and primitives are available to people who are making use of that platform though, right? Because again, kind of opens up that conversation, right? Around transparency. The goal being, if you understood the tools that we’re defining that constraint, perhaps you’d have access to view what the constraints are and understand if they’re actually rational or not with your applications. When you’re trying to resolve like I have deployed my application in dev and it’s the wild west, there’s no constraints anywhere. I can do anything within dev, right? When I’m trying to actually promote my application to staging, it gives you some platform around which you can actually sa, “If you want to get to staging, I do have to enforce these things and I have a way and again, all still part of that same API, I still have that same user experience that I had when just deploying or designing the application to getting them deployed.” I could still look at again and understand what the constraints are being applied and make sure that they’re reasonable for my application. Does my application run, does it have access to the network resources that it needs to? If not, can I see where the gaps are, you know? [0:16:38.6] DC: For anyone listening to this. Kubernetes doesn’t have all the documentation we need and no one has actually written this book yet. But on Kubernetes.io, there are a couple of documents about security and if we have shownotes, I will make sure those get included in our shownotes because I think there are things that you should at least understand what’s in a pod security policy. You should at least understand what’s in a network security policy. You should at least understand how roles and role bindings work. You should understand what you’re going to do for certificate management. How do you manage this certificate authority in Kubernetes? How do you actually work these things out? This is where you should start before you do anything else really fancy. At least, understand your landscape. [0:17:22.7] CC: Jeffrey did a TGI K talk on secrets. I think was that a series? There were a couple of them, Duffie? [0:17:29.7] DC: Yeah, there were. I need to get back and do a little more but yeah. [0:17:33.4] BM: We should then add those to our shownotes too. Hopefully they actually exist or I’m willing to see to it because in assistance. [0:17:40.3] CC: We are going to have shownotes, yes. [0:17:44.0] NL: That is interesting point, bringing up secrets and secret management and also, like secured Inexhibit. There are some tools that exist that we can use now in a cloud native world, at least in the container world. Things like vault exist, things like well, now, KBDM you can roll certificate which is really nice. We are getting to a place where we have more tooling available and I’m really happy about it. Because I remember using Kubernetes a year ago and everyone’s like, “Well. How do you secure a secret in Kubernetes?” And I’m like, “Well, it sure is basics for you to encode it. That’s on an all secure.” [0:18:15.5] BM: I would do credit Bitnami has been doing sealed secrets, that’s been out for quite a while but the problem is that how do you suppose to know about that and how are you supposed to know if it’s a good standard? And then also, how are you supposed to benchmark against that? How do you know if your secrets are okay? We haven’t talked about the other side which is response or detection of issues. We’re just talking about starting out, what do you do? [0:18:42.3] DC: That’s right. [0:18:42.6] NL: It is tricky. We’re just saying like, understanding all the avenues that you could be impacted is kind of a daunting task. Let’s talk about like the Target breach that occurred a few years ago? If anybody doesn’t remember this, basically, Target had a huge credit card breach from their database and basically, what happened is that t heir – If I recalled properly, their OIDC token had a – not expired but the audience for it was so broad that someone had hacked into one computer essentially like a register or something and they were able to get the OIDC token form the local machine. The authentication audience for that whole token was so broad that they were able to access the database that had all of the credit card information into it. These are one of these things that you don’t think about when you’re setting up security, when you’re just maybe getting started or something like that. What are the avenues of attack, right? You’d say like, “OIDC is just pure authentication mechanism, why would we need to concern ourselves with this?” And then but not understanding kind of what we were talking about last because the networking and the broadcasting, what is the blast radius of something like this and so, I feel like this is a good example of sometimes security can be really hard and getting started can be really daunting. [0:19:54.6] DC: Yeah, I agree. To Bryan’s point, it’s like, how do you test against this? How do you know that what you’ve defined is enough, right? We can define all of these constraints and we can even think that they’re pretty reasonable or rational and the application may come up and operate but how do you know? How can you verify that? What you’ve done is enough? And then also, remember. With OIDC has its own foundations and loft. You realize that it’s a very strong door but it’s only a strong door, it also do things that you can’t walk around a wall and that it’s protecting or climb over the wall that it’s protecting. There’s a bit of trust and when you get into things like the target breach, you really have to understand blast radius for anything that you’re going to do. A good example would be if you’re using shared key kind of things or like public share key. You have certificate authorities and you’re generating certificates. You should probably have multiple certificate authorities and you can have a basically, a hierarchy of these so you could have basically the root one controlled by just a few people in security. And then, each department has their own certificate authority and then you should also have things like revocation, you should be able to say that, “Hey, all this is bad and it should all go away and it probably should have every revocation list,” which a lot of us don’t have believe it or not, internally. Where if I actually kill our own certificate, a certificate was generated and I put it in my revocation list, it should not be served and in our clients that are accepting that our service is to see that, if we’re using client side certificates, we should reject these instantly. Really, what we need to do is stop looking at security as this one big thing and we need to figure out what are our blast radius. Firecracker, blowing up in my hand, it’s going to hurt me. But Nick, it’s not going to hurt you, you know? If someone drops in a huge nuclear bomb on the United States or the west coast United States, I’m talking to myself right now. You got to think about it like that. What’s the worst that can happen if this thing gets busted or get shared or someone finds that this should not happen? Every piece off data that you have that you consider secure or sensitive, you should be able to figure out what that means and that is how whenever you are defining a security posture that’s butchered to me. Because that is why you’ll notice that a lot of companies some of them do run open within a contained zone. So, within this contained zone you could talk to whomever you want. We don’t actually have to be secure here because if we lose one, we lost them all so who cares? So, we need to think about that and how do we do that in Kubernetes? Well, we use things like name spaces first of all and then we use things like this network policies and then we use things like pod security policies. We can lock some access down to just name spaces if need be. You can only talk to pods and your name space. And I am not telling you how to do this but you need to figure out talking with your developer, talking to the security people. But if you are in security you need to talk to your product management staff and your software engineering staff to figure out really how does this need to work? So, you realize that security is fun and we have all sorts of neat tools depending on what side you’re on. You know if you are on red team, you’re half knee in, you’re blue team you are saving things. We need to figure out these conversations and tooling comes from these conversations but we need to have these conversation first. [0:23:11.0] DC: I feel like a little bit of a broken record on this one but I am going to go back to chaos engineering again because I feel like it is critical to stuff like this because it enables a culture in which you can explore both the behavior of applications itself but why not also use this model to explore different ways of accessing that information? Or coming up with theories about the way the system might be vulnerable based on a particular attack or a type of attack, right? I think that this is actually one of the movements within our space that I think provides because then most hope in this particular scenario because a reasonable chaos engineering practice within an organization enables that ability to explore all of the things. You don’t have to be red team or blue team. You can just be somebody who understands this application well and the question for the day is, “How can we attack this application?” Let’s come up with theories about the way that perhaps this application could be attacked. Think about the problem differently instead of thinking about it as an access problem, think about it as the way that you extend trust to the other components within your particular distributed system like do they have access that they don’t need. Come up with a theory around being able to use some proxy component of another system to attack yet a third system. You know start playing with those ideas and prove them out within your application. A culture that embraces that I think is going to be by far a more secure culture because it lets developers and engineers explore these systems in ways that we don’t generally explore them. [0:24:36.0] BM: Right. But also, if I could operate on myself I would never need a doctor. And the reason I bring that up is because we use terms like chaos engineering and this is no disrespect to you Duffie, so don’t take it as this is panacea or this idea that we make things better and true. That is fine, it will make us better but the little secret behind chaos engineering is that it is hard. It is hard to build these experiments first of all, it is hard to collect results from these experiments. And then it is hard to extrapolate what you got out of the experiments to apply to whatever you are working on to repeat and what I would like to see is what people in our space is talking about how we can apply such techniques. But whether it is giving us more words or giving us more software that we can employ because I hate to say it, it is pretty chaotic in chaos engineering right now for Kubernetes. Because if you look at all the people out there who have done it well. And so, you look at what Netflix has done with pioneering this and then you listen to what, a company such us like Gremlin is talking about it is all fine and dandy. You need to realize that it is another piece of complexity that you have to own and just like any other things in the security world, you need to rationalize how much time you are going to spend on it first is the bottom line because if I have a “Hello, World!” app, I don’t really care about network access to that. Unless it is a “Hello, World!” app running on the same subnet as some doing some PCI data then you know it is a different conversation. [0:26:05.5] DC: Yeah. I agree and I am certainly not trying to version as a panacea but what I am trying to describe is that I feel like I am having a culture that embraces that sort of thinking is going to enable us to be in a better position to secure these applications or to handle a breach or to deal with very hard to understand or resolve problems at scale, you know? Whether that is a number of connections per second or whether that is a number of applications that we have horizontally scaled. You know like being able to embrace that sort of a culture where we asked why where we say “well, what if…” or if we actually come up you know embracing the idea of that curiosity that got you into this field, you know what I mean like the thing that is so frequently our cultures are opposite of that, right? It becomes a race to the finish and in that race to the finish, lots of pieces fall off that we are not even aware of, you know? That is what I am highlighting here when I talk about it. [0:26:56.5] NL: And so, it seems maybe the best solution to the dichotomy between security and agility is really just open conversation, in a way. People actually reaching across the aisle to talk to each other. So, if you are embracing this culture as you are saying Duffie the security team should be having constant communication with the application team instead of just like the team doing something wrong and the security team coming down and smacking their hand. And being like, “Oh you can’t do it this way because of our draconian rules” right? These people are working together and almost playing together a little bit inside of their own environment to create also a better environment. And I am sorry.I didn’t mean to cut you off there, Bryan. [0:27:34.9] BM: Oh man, I thought it was fleeting like all my thoughts. But more about what you are saying is, is that you know it is not just more conversations because we can still have conversations and I am talking about sider and subnets and attack vectors and buffer overflows and things like that. But my developer isn’t talking, “Well, I just need to be able to serve this data so accounting can do this.” And that’s what happens a lot in security conversations. You have two groups of individuals who have wholly different goals and part of that conversation needs to be aligning or jargon and then aligning on those goals but what happens with pretty much everything in the development world, we always bring our networking, our security and our operations people in right at the end, right when we are ready to ship, “Hey make this thing work.” And really it is where a lot of our problems come out. Now security either could or wanted to be involved at the beginning of a software project what we actually are talking about what we are trying to do. We are trying to open up this service to talk to this, share this kind of data. Security can be in there early saying, “Oh no you know, we are using this resource in our cloud provider. It doesn’t really matter what cloud provider and we need to protect this. This data is sitting here at rest.” If we get those conversations earlier, it would be easier to engineer solutions that to be hopefully reused so we don’t have to have that conversation in the future. [0:29:02.5] CC: But then it goes back to the issue of agility, right? Like Duffie was saying, wow you can develop, I guess a development cluster which has much less restrictive restrictions and they move to a production environment where the proper restrictions are then – then you find out or maybe station environment let’s say. And then you find out, “Oh whoops. There are a bunch of restrictions I didn’t deal with but I didn’t move a lot faster because I didn’t have them but now, I have to deal with them.” [0:29:29.5] DC: Yeah, do you think it is important to have a promotion model in which you are able to move toward a more secure deployment right? Because I guess a parallel to this is like I have heard it said that you should develop your monolith first and then when you actually have the working prototype of what you’re trying to create then consider carefully whether it is time to break this thing up into a set of distinct services, right? And consider carefully also what the value of that might be? And I think that the reason that that’s said is because it is easier. It is going to be a lower cognitive load with everything all right there in the same codebase. You understand how all of these pieces interconnect and you can quickly develop or prototype what you are working on. Whereas if you are trying to develop these things into individual micro services first, it is harder to figure out where the line is. Like where to divide all of the business logic. I think this is also important when you are thinking about the security aspects of this right? Being able to do a thing when which you are not constrained, define all of these services and your application in the model for how they communicate without constraint is important. And once you have that when you actually understand what normal looks like from that set of applications then enforce them, right? If you are able to declare that intent you are going to say like these are the ports on the list on for these things, these are the things that they are going to access, this is the way that they are going to go about accessing them. You know if you can declare that intent then that is actually that is a reasonable body of knowledge for which the security people can come along and say, “Okay well, you have told us. You informed us. You have worked with us to tell us like what your intent is. We are going to enforce that intent and see what falls out and we can iterate there.” [0:31:01.9] CC: Yeah everything you said makes sense to me. Starting with build the monolith first. I mean when you start out why which ones will have abstract things that you don’t really – I mean you might think you know but you’re only really knowing practice what you are going to need to abstract. So, don’t abstract things too early. I am a big fan of that idea. So yeah, start with the monolith and then you figure out how to break it down based on what you need. With security I would imagine the same idea resonates with me. Don’t secure things that you don’t need you don’t know just yet that needs securing except the deal breaker things. Like there is some things we know like we don’t want production that are being accessed some types of production that are some things we know we need to secure so from the beginning. [0:31:51.9] BM: Right. But I will still iterate that it is always denied by default, just remember that. It is security is actually the opposite way. We want to make sure that we have the least amount and even if it is harder for us you always want to start with un-allowed TCP communication on port 443 or UDP as well. That is what I would allow rather than saying shut everything else off. But this, I would rather have the way that we only allow that and that also goes in with our declarative nature in cloud native things we like anyways. We just say what we want and everything else doesn’t exists. [0:32:27.6] DC: I do want to clarify though because I think what you and I, we are the representative of the dichotomy right at this moment, right? I feel like what you are saying is the constraint should be the normal, being able to drop all traffic, do not allow anything is normal and then you have to declare intent to open anything up and what I am saying is frequently developers don’t know what normal looks like yet. They need to be able to explore what normal looks like by developing these patterns and then enforce them, right, which is turning the model on its head. And this is actually I think the kernel that I am trying to get to in this conversation is that there has to be a place where you can go play and learn what normal is and then you can move into a world in which you can actually enforce what that normal looks like with reasonable constraint. But until you know what that is, until you have that opportunity to learn it, all we are doing here is restricting your ability to learn. We are adding friction to the process. [0:33:25.1] BM: Right, well I think what I am trying to say here layer on top of this is that yes, I agree but then I understand what a breach can do and what bad security can do. So I will say, “Yeah, go learn. Go play all you want but not on software that will ever make it to production. Go learn these practices but you are going to have to do it outside of” – you are going to have a sandbox and that sandbox is going to be unconnected from the world I mean from our obelisk and you are going to have to learn but you are not going to practice here. This is not where you learn how to do this. [0:33:56.8] NL: Exactly right, yeah. You don’t learn to ride a motorcycle on the street you know? You’d learn to ride a motorcycle on the dirt and then you could take those skills later you know? But yeah I think we are in agreement like production is a place where we do have to enforce all of those things and having some promotion level in which you can come from a place where you learned it to a place where you are beginning to enforce it to a place where it is enforced I think is also important. And I frequently describe this as like development, staging and production, right? Staging is where you are going to hit the edges from because this is where you’re actually defining that constraint and it has to be right before it can be promoted to production, right? And I feel like the middle ground is also important. [0:34:33.6] BM: And remember that production is any environment production can reach. Any environment that can reach production is production and that is including that we do data backup dumps and we clean them up from production and we use it as data in our staging environment. If production can directly reach staging or vice versa, it is all production. That is your attack vector. That is also what is going to get in and steal your production data. [0:34:59.1] NL: That is absolutely right. Google actually makes an interesting not of caveat to that but like side point to that where like if I understand the way that Google runs, they run everything in production, right? Like dev, staging and production are all the same environment. I am more positing this is a question because I don’t know if anybody of us have the answer but I wonder how they secure their infrastructure, their environment well enough to allow people to play to learn these things? And also, to deploy production level code all in the same area? That seems really interesting to be and then if I understood that I probably would be making a lot more money. [0:35:32.6] BM: Well it is simple really. There were huge people process at Google that access gatekeeper for a lot of these stuff. So, I have never worked in Google. I have no intrinsic knowledge of Google or have talked to anyone who has given me this insight, this is all speculation disclaimer over. But you can actually run a big cluster that if you can actually prove that you have network and memory and CPU isolation between containers, which they can in certain cases and certain things that can do this. What you can do is you can use your people process and your approvals to make sure that software gets to where it needs to be. So, you can still play on the same clusters but we have great handles on network that you can’t talk to these networks or you can’t use this much network data. We have great things on CPU that this CPU would be a PCI data. We will not allow it unless it’s tied to CPU or it is PCI. Once you have that in place, you do have a lot more flexibility. But to do that, you will have to have some pretty complex approval structures and then software to back that up. So, the burden on it is not on the normal developer and that is actually what Google has done. They have so many tools and they have so many processes where if you use this tool it actually does the process for you. You don’t have to think about it. And that is what we want our developers to be. We want them to be able to use either our networking libraries or whenever they are building their containers or their Kubernetes manifest, use our tools and we will make sure based on either inspection or just explicit settings that we will build something that is as secure as we can given the inputs. And what I am saying is hard and it is capital H hard and I am actually just pitting where we want to be and where a lot of us are not. You know most people are not there. [0:37:21.9] NL: Yeah, it would be nice if we had like we said earlier like more tooling around security and the processes and all of these things. One thing I think that people seem to balk on or at least I feel is developing it for their own use case, right? It seems like people want an overarching tool to solve all the use cases in the world. And I think with the rise of cloud native applications and things like container orchestration, I would like to see people more developing for themselves around their own processes, around Kubernetes and things like that. I want to see more perspective into how people are solving their security problems, instead of just like relying on let’s say like HashiCorp or like Aqua Sec to provide all the answers like I want to see more answers of what people are doing. [0:38:06.5] BM: Oh, it is because tools like Vault are hard to write and hard to maintain and hard to keep correct because you think about other large competitors to vault and they are out there like tools like CyberArk. I have a secret and I want to make sure only certain will keep it. That is a very difficult tool but the HashiCorp advantage here is that they have made tools to speak to people who write software or people who understand ops not just as a checkbox. It is not hard to get. If you are using vault it is not hard to get a secret out if you have the right credentials. Other tools is super hard to get the secret out if you even have the right credential because they have a weird API or they just make it very hard for you or they expect you to go click on some gooey somewhere. And that is what we need to do. We need to have better programming interfaces and better operator interfaces, which extends to better security people are basis for you to use these tools. You know I don’t know how well this works in practice. But the Jeff Bezos, how teams at AWS or Amazon or forums, you know teams communicate on API and I am not saying that you shouldn’t talk, but we should definitely make sure that our API’s between teams and team who owns security stuff and teams who are writing developer stuff that we can talk on the same level of fidelity that we can having an in person conversation, we should be able to do that through our software as well. Whether that be for asking for ports or asking for our resources or just talking about the problem that we have that is my thought-leadering answer to this. This is “Bryan wants to be a VP of something one day” and that is the answer I am giving. I’m going to be the CIO that is my CIO answer. [0:39:43.8] DC: I like it. So cool. [0:39:45.5] BM: Is there anything else on this subject that we wanted to hit? [0:39:48.5] NL: No, I think we have actually touched on pretty much everything. We got a lot out of this and I am always impressed with the direction that we go and I did not expect us to go down this route and I was very pleased with the discussion we have had so far. [0:39:59.6] DC: Me too. I think if we are going to explore anything else that we talked about like you know, get it more into that state where we are talking about like that we need more feedback loops. We need people developers to talk to security people. We need security people talk to developers. We need to have some way of actually pushing that feedback loop much like some of the other cultural changes that we have seen in our industry are trying to allow for better feedback loops and other spaces. And you’ve brought up dev spec ops which is another move to try and open up that feedback loop but the problem I think is still going to be that even if we improved that feedback loop, we are at an age where – especially if you ended up in some of the larger organizations, there are too many applications to solve this problem for and I don’t know yet how to address this problem in that context, right? If you are in a state where you are a 20-person, 30-person security team and your responsibility is to secure a platform that is running a number of Kubernetes clusters, a number of Vsphere clusters, a number of cloud provider implementations whether that would be AWS or GC, I mean that is a set of problems that is very difficult. It is like I am not sure that improving the feedback loop really solves it. I know that I helps but I definitely you know, I have empathy for those folks for sure. [0:41:13.0] CC: Security is not my forte at all because whenever I am developing, I have a narrow need. You know I have to access a cluster.I have to access a machine or I have to be able to access the database. And it is usually a no brainer but I get a lot of the issues that were brought up. But as a builder of software, I have empathy for people who use software, consume software, mine and others and how can’t they have any visibility as far as security goes? For example, in the world of cloud native let’s say you are using Kubernetes, I sort of start thinking, “Well, shouldn’t there be a scanner that just lets me declare?” I think I am starting an episode right now –should there be a scanner that lets me declare for example this node can only access this set of nodes like a graph. But you just declare and then you run it periodically and you make sure of course this goes down to part of an app can only access part of the database. It can get very granular but maybe at a very high level I mean how hard can this be? For example, this pod can only access that pods but this pod cannot access this name space and just keep checking what if the name spaces changes, the permission changes. Or for example would allow only these answers can do a backup because they are the same users who will have access to the restore so they have access to all the data, you know what I mean? Just keep checking that is in place and it only changes when you want to. [0:42:48.9] BM: So, I mean I know we are at the end of this call and I want to start a whole new conversation but this is actually is why there are applications out there like Istio and Linkerd. This is why people want service meshes because they can turn off all network access and then just use the service mesh to do the communication and then they can use, they can make sure that it is encrypted on both sides and that is a honey cave on all both sides. That is why this is operated. [0:43:15.1] CC: We’ll definitely going to have an episode or multiple on service mesh but we are on the top of the hour. Nick, do your thing. [0:43:23.8] NL: All right, well, thank you so much for joining us on another interesting discussion at The Kubelets Podcast. I am Nicholas Lane, Duffie any final thoughts? [0:43:32.9] DC: There is a whole lot to discuss, I really enjoyed our conversations today. Thank you everybody. [0:43:36.5] NL: And Bryan? [0:43:37.4] BM: Oh it was good being here. Now it is lunch time. [0:43:41.1] NL: And Carlisia. [0:43:42.9] CC: I love learning from you all, thank you. Glad to be here. [0:43:46.2] NL: Totally agree. Thank you again for joining us and we’ll see you next time. Bye. [0:43:51.0] CC: Bye. [0:43:52.1] DC: Bye. [0:43:52.6] BM: Bye. [END OF EPISODE] [0:43:54.7] ANNOUNCER: Thank you for listening to The Podlets Cloud Native Podcast. Find us on Twitter at https://twitter.com/ThePodlets and on the http://thepodlets.io/ website, where you'll find transcripts and show notes. We'll be back next week. Stay tuned by subscribing. [END]See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For this special episode, we are joined by Joe Beda who is currently Principal Engineer at VMware. He is also one of the founders of Kubernetes from his days at Google! We use this open table discussion to look at a bunch of exciting topics from Joe's past, present, and future. He shares some of the invaluable lessons he has learned and offers some great tips and concepts from his vast experience building platforms over the years. We also talk about personal things like stress management, avoiding burnout and what is keeping him up at night with excitement and confusion! Large portions of the show are obviously spent discussion different aspects and questions about Kubernetes, including its relationship with etcd and Docker, its reputation as a very complex platform and Joe's thoughts for investing in the space. Joe opens up on some interesting new developments in the tech world and his wide-ranging knowledge is so insightful and measured, you are not going to want to miss this! Join us today, for this great episode! Follow us: https://twitter.com/thepodlets Website: https://thepodlets.io Feeback: info@thepodlets.io https://github.com/vmware-tanzu/thepodlets/issues Special guest: Joe Beda Hosts: Carlisia Campos Bryan Liles Michael Gasch Key Points From This Episode: A quick history of Joe and his work at Google on Kubernetes. The one thing that Joe thinks sometimes gets lost in translation on these topics. Lessons that Joe has learned in the different companies where he has worked. How Joe manages mental stress and maintains enough energy for all his commitments. Reflections on Kubernetes relationship with and usage of etcd. Is Kubernetes supposed to be complex? Why are people so divided about it? Joe's experience as a platform builder and the most important lessons he has learned. Thoughts for venture capitalists looking to invest in the Kubernetes space. Joe's thoughts on a few different recent developments in the tech world. The relationship and between Kubernetes and Docker and possible ramifications of this. The tech that is most exciting and alien to Joe at the moment! Quotes: “These things are all interrelated. At a certain point, the technology and the business and career and work-life – all those things really impact each other.” — @jbeda [0:03:41] “I think one of the things that I enjoy is actually to be able to look at things from all those various different angles and try and find a good path forward.” — @jbeda [0:04:19] “It turns out that as you bounced around the industry a little bit, there's actually probably more alike than there is different.” — @jbeda [0:06:16] “What are the things that people can do now that they couldn't do pre-Kubernetes? Those are the things where we're going to see the explosion of growth.” — @jbeda [0:32:40] “You can have the most beautiful technology, if you can't tell the human story about it, about what it does for folks, then nobody will care.” — @jbeda [0:33:27] Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode: The Podlets on Twitter — https://twitter.com/thepodlets Kubernetes — https://kubernetes.io/Joe Beda — https://www.linkedin.com/in/jbedaEighty Percent — https://www.eightypercent.net/Heptio — https://heptio.cloud.vmware.com/Craig McLuckie — https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/11/kubernetes-co-founder-craig-mcluckie-is-as-tired-of-talking-about-kubernetes-as-you-are/Brendan Burns — https://thenewstack.io/kubernetes-co-creator-brendan-burns-on-what-comes-next/Microsoft — https://www.microsoft.comKubeCon — https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/events/kubecon-cloudnativecon-europe-2019/re:Invent — https://reinvent.awsevents.com/etcd — https://etcd.io/CosmosDB — https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cosmos-db/introductionRancher — https://rancher.com/PostgresSQL — https://www.postgresql.org/Linux — https://www.linux.org/Babel — https://babeljs.io/React — https://reactjs.org/Hacker News — https://news.ycombinator.com/BigTable — https://cloud.google.com/bigtable/Cassandra — http://cassandra.apache.org/MapReduce — https://www.ibm.com/analytics/hadoop/mapreduceHadoop — https://hadoop.apache.org/Borg — https://kubernetes.io/blog/2015/04/borg-predecessor-to-kubernetes/Tesla — https://www.tesla.com/Thomas Edison — https://www.biography.com/inventor/thomas-edisonNetscape — https://isp.netscape.com/Internet Explorer — https://internet-explorer-9-vista-32.en.softonic.com/Microsoft Office — https://www.office.comVB — https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/visualstudio/get-started/visual-basic/tutorial-console?view=vs-2019Docker — https://www.docker.com/Uber — https://www.uber.comLyft — https://www.lyft.com/Airbnb — https://www.airbnb.com/Chromebook — https://www.google.com/chromebook/Harbour — https://harbour.github.io/Demoscene — https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/j5wgp7/who-killed-the-american-demoscene-synchrony-demoparty Transcript: BONUS EPISODE 001 [INTRODUCTION] [0:00:08.7] ANNOUNCER: Welcome to The Podlets Podcast, a weekly show that explores Cloud Native one buzzword at a time. Each week, experts in the field will discuss and contrast distributed systems concepts, practices, tradeoffs and lessons learned to help you on your cloud native journey. This space moves fast and we shouldn’t reinvent the wheel. If you’re an engineer, operator or technically minded decision maker, this podcast is for you. [EPISODE] [0:00:41.9] CC: Hi, everybody. Welcome back to The Podlets. We have a new name. This is our first episode with a new name. Don’t want to go much into it, other than we had to change from The Kubelets to The Podlets, because the Kubelets conflicts with an existing project and we’ve thought it was just better to change. The show, the concept, the host, everything stays the same. I am super excited today, because we have a special guest, Joe Beda and Bryan Liles, Michael Gasch. Joe, just give us a brief introduction. The other hosts have been on the show before. People should know about them. Everybody should know about you too, but there's always newcomers in the space, so give us a little bit of a background. [0:01:29.4] JB: Yeah, sure. I'm Joe Beda. I was one of the founders of Kubernetes back when I was at Google, along with Craig McLuckie and Brendan Burns, with a bunch of other folks joining on soon after. I'm currently Principal Engineer at VMware, helping to cover all things Kubernetes and Tanzu related across the company. I came into VMware via the acquisition of Heptio, where Bryan's wearing the shirt today. Left Google, did that with Craig for about two years. Then it's almost a full year here at VMware. We're at 11 months officially as of two days ago. Yeah, really excited to be here. [0:02:12.0] CC: Yeah, I am so excited. Your name is Joe Beda. I always say Joe Beda. [0:02:16.8] JB: You know what? It's four letters and it's easy – it's amazing how many different ways there are to pronounce it. I don't get picky about it. [0:02:23.4] CC: Okay, cool. Well, today I learned. I am very excited about this show, because basically, I get to ask you anything I want. [0:02:35.9] JB: I’ll do my best to answer. [0:02:37.9] CC: Yeah. You can always not answer. There are so many interviews of you out there on YouTube, podcasts. We are going to try to do something different. Let me fire the first question I have for you. When people interview you, they ask you yeah, the usual questions, the questions that are very useful for the community. I want to ask you is this, what are people asking you that you think are the wrong questions? [0:03:08.5] JB: I don't think there's any bad questions like this. I think that there's a ton of interest that's when we're talking about technical stuff at different parts of the Kubernetes stack, I think that there's a lot of business context around the container ecosystem and the companies and around to forming Heptio, all that. A lot of times, I'll have discussions around career and what led me to where I'm at now. I think those are all a lot of really interesting things to talk about all around all that. The one thing that I think is doesn't always come across is these things are all interrelated. At a certain point, the technology and the business and career and work-life – all those things really impact each other. I think it's a mistake to try and take these things in isolation. There's a ton of lead over. I think one of the things that we tried to do at Heptio, and I think we did a good job is recognized that for anybody senior enough inside of any organization, they really have to be able to play all roles, right? At a certain point, everybody is as a business person, fundamentally, in terms of actually moving the ball forward for the company, for the business as a whole. Yeah. I think one of the things that I enjoy is actually to be able to look at things from all those various different angles and try and find a good path forward. [0:04:28.7] BL: All right. Taking that, so you've gone from big co to big co, to VC to small co to big co. What does that unique experience taught you and what can you share with us? [0:04:45.5] JB: Bryan, you know my resume better than I do apparently. I started my career at Microsoft and cut my teeth working on Internet Explorer and doing client side stuff there. I then went to Google in the office up here in Seattle. It was actually in Kirkland, this little hole-in-the-wall, temporary office, preemie work type of thing. I’m thinking, “Hey, I want to do some server-side stuff.” Worked on Google Talk, worked on ads, worked on cloud, started Kubernetes, was a little burned out. Took some time off, goofed off. Did this entrepreneur-in-residence thing for VC and then started Heptio and then sold the VMware. [0:05:23.7] BL: When you're in a big company, especially when you're more junior, it's easy to get caught up in playing the game inside of that company. When I say the game, what I mean is that there are measures of success within big companies and there are ways to advance see approval, see rewards that are all very specific to that company. I think the culture of a company is really defined by what are the parameters and what are the successes, the success factors for getting ahead inside of each of those different companies. I think a lot of times, especially when as a Microsoft straight out at college, I did a couple internships at Microsoft and then joining – leaving Microsoft that first time was actually really, really difficult because there is this fear of like, “Oh, my God. Everything's going to be super different.” It turns out that as you bounced around the industry a little bit, there's actually probably more alike than there is different. The biggest difference I think between large company and small company is really, and I'll throw out some science analogies here. I think, oftentimes organizations are a little bit like the ideal gas law. Okay, maybe going past y'all, but this is – PV = nRT. Pressure times volume equals number of molecules times temperature and the R is a constant. The idea here is that this is an equation where as you add more molecules to a constrained space, that will actually change the temperature and the pressure and these things all rise. What happens is inside of a large company, you end up with so many people within a constrained space in terms of the product space. When you add more people to the organization, or when you're looking to get ahead, it feels very zero-sum. It very much feels like, “Hey, for me to advance, somebody else has to lose.” That's not how the real world works, but oftentimes that's how it feels inside of the big company, is that if it feels zero-sum like that. The liberating thing for being at a startup and I think why so many people get addicted to working at startups is that startups are fundamentally not zero-sum. Everybody succeeds and fails together. When a new person shows up, your thought process is naturally like, “Awesome, we got more cylinders in the engine. We’re going to go faster,” which is not always the case inside of a big company. Now, I think as you get senior enough, all of a sudden these things changes, because you're not just operating within the confines of that company. You're actually again, playing a role in the business, you're looking at the ecosystem, you're looking at the community, you're looking at the competitive landscape and that's where you have your eye on the ball and that's what defines success for you, not the internal company metrics, but really the business metrics is what defines success for you. The thing that I'm trying to do, here at VMware now is as we do Tanzu is make sure that we recognize the unbounded possibilities in front of us inside of this world, make sure that we actually focus our energy on serving customers. In doing so, out-compete others in the market. It's not a zero-sum game, it's not something where as we bring more folks on that we feel we're competing with them. That's a little rambling of an answer. I don't know if that links together for you, Bryan. [0:08:41.8] BL: No, no. That was pretty good. [0:08:44.1] JB: Thanks. [0:08:46.6] MG: Joe, that's probably going to be a context switch now. You touched on the time when you went through the burnout phase. Then last week, I think you put out a tweet on there's so much stuff going on, which tweet I'm talking about. Yeah. In the Kubernetes community, you’re a rock star. At VMware, you're already a rock star being on stage at VMware shaking hands with Pat. I mean, there's so many people, so many e-mails, so many slacks, whatever that you get every day, but still I feel you are able to keep the balance, stay grounded and always have a chat, even though sometimes I don't want to approach you, but sometimes I do when I have some crazy questions maybe. Still you’re not pushing people away. How do you manage with mental stress preventing another burnout? What is the secret sauce here? Because I feel I need to work on that. [0:09:37.4] JB: Well, I mean it's hard. The tweet that I put out was last week I was coming back from Barcelona and tired of travel. I'm looking forward to right now, we're recording this just before KubeCon. Then after KubeCon, planning to go to re:Invent in Vegas, which is just a social denial-of-service. It's just overwhelming being with that. I was tired of traveling. I posted something and came across a little stronger than I wanted to. That I just hate people, right? I was at that point where it's just you're traveling and you just don't want to deal with anybody and every little thing is really bugging you and annoying you. I think burnout is an interesting thing. For me and I think there's different causes for different folks. Number one is that it's always fascinating when you start a new job, your calendar is empty, your responsibilities are low. Then as you are successful and you integrate yourself into the organization, all of a sudden you find that you have more work than you have time to do. Then you hit this point where you try and like, “I'm just going to keep doing it. I'm going to power through.” Then you finally hit this point where you're like, “This is just not humanly possible.” Then you go into a triage mode and then you have to decide what's important. I know that there's more to be done than I can do. I have to be very thoughtful about prioritizing what I'm doing. There's a lot of techniques that you can bring to bear there. Being explicit about what your goals are and what your priorities are, writing those things down, whether it's an OKR process, or whether it's just here's the my top three things that I'm focusing on. Making sure that those things are purposefully meaningful to you, right? Understanding the difference between urgent and important, which these are business booky type of things, but it's this idea of there are things that feel they have to get done right now and then there are things that are long-term important. If you're not thoughtful about how you do things, you spend all your time doing the urgent things, but you never get to the stuff that's the actually long-term important. That's a really easy trap to get yourself into. Finding ways to delegate to folks is really, really helpful here, in terms of empowering others, trusting them. It's hard to let go sometimes, but I think being able to set the stage for other people to be successful is really empowering. Then just recognizing it's not all going to get done and that's okay. You can't hold yourself to expect that. Now with respect to burnout, for me, the biggest driver for burnout in my career has been when I felt personal responsibility over something, but I have been had the tools, or the authority, or the ability to impact it.When you feel in your bones ownership over something, but yet you can't actually really own it, that is what causes burnout for me. I think there are studies talking about how the worst job is middle management. I think it's not being the CEO. It's not being new to the organization, being junior. It's actually being stuck in the middle. Because you're given a certain amount of responsibility, but you aren't always given the tools necessary to be able to drive that. Whereas the folks at the top, oftentimes they don't have those constraints, so they actually own stuff and have agency to be able to take care of it. I think when you're starting on more junior in the organization, the scope of ownership that you feel is relatively minor. That being stuck in the middle is the biggest driver for me for burnout. A big part of that is just recognizing that sometimes you have to take a step back and personally divest that feeling of ownership when really it's not yours to own. I'll give you an example, is that I started Google Compute Engine at Google, which is arguably the foundational cloud service for GCP. As it grew, as it became more important to Google, as it got reorged, more or more of the leadership and responsibilities and decision-making, I’m up here in Seattle, move down the mountain view, a lot of that stuff was focused at had been in the cloud market, but then at Google for 10 or 15 years coming in and they're like, “Okay, that's cute. We got it from here,” right? That was a case where it was my thing. I felt a lot of ownership over it. It was clear after a certain amount of time, hey, you know what? I just work here. I'm just doing my job and I do what I do, but really it’s these other folks that are driving the bus. That's a painful transition to actually go from that feeling of ownership to I just work here. That I think is one of the reasons why oftentimes, people leave the companies. I think that was one of the big drivers for why I ended up leaving Google, was that lack of agency to be able to impact things that I cared about quite a bit. [0:13:59.8] CC: I think that's one reason why – well, I think that working in the companies where things are moving fast, because they have a very clear, very worthwhile goal provides you the opportunity to just have so much work that you have to say no to a lot of things like where you were saying, and also take ownership of pieces of that work, because there's more work to go around than people to do it. For example, since Heptio and VM – okay, I’m plugging. This is a big plug for VMware I guess, but it definitely is a place that's moving fast. It's not crazy. It's reasonable, because everybody, pretty much, wherever one of us grown up. There is so much to do and people are glad when you take ownership of things. That really for me is a big source of work satisfaction. [0:14:51.2] JB: Yeah. I think it's that zero-sum versus positive-sum game. I think that when you – there's a lot more room for you to actually feel that ownership, have that agency, have that responsibility when you're in a positive-sum environment, versus a zero-sum environment. [0:15:04.9] BL: All right, so now I want to ask your technical question. [0:15:08.1] JB: All right. [0:15:09.5] BL: Not a really hard one. Just more of how you think about this. Kubernetes is five and almost five and a half years old. One of the key components of Kubernetes is etcd. Now knowing what we know now and 2019 with Kubernetes have you used etcd as its key store? Or would you have gone another direction? [0:15:32.1] JB: I think etcd is a good fit. The truth of the matter is that we didn't give that decision as much thought as we probably should have early on. We saw that it was relatively easy to stand up and get going with. At least on paper, it had the qualities that we were looking for, so we started building with it and then just ran with it. Something like ZooKeeper was also something we could have taken, but the operational overhead at the time of ZooKeeper was very different from etcd. I think we could have gone in the direction of them and this is why [inaudible 0:15:58.5] for a lot of their tools, where they actually build the data store into the tool in a native way. I think that can lead in some ways to a simpler getting started experience, because there's just one thing to boot up, but also it's more monolithic from a backup, maintenance, recovery type of thing. The one thing that I think we probably should have done there in retrospect is to try and create a little bit more of an arm's length relationship in Kubernetes and etcd. In terms of having some cleaner interfaces, some more contractor and stuff, so that we could have actually swapped something else out. There's folks that are doing it, so it's not impossible, but it's definitely not something that's easy to do, or well-supported. I think that that's probably the thing that I wouldn't change in that space. Another thing we might want to change, I think it might have been good to be more explicit about being able to actually shard things out, so that you could have multiple data stores for multiple resources and actually find a way to horizontally scale. Now we do that with events, because we were writing events into etcd and that's just a totally different stream of data, but everything else right now – I think now there's room to do this into the future. I think we've been able to push etcd vertically up until now. There will come a time where we need to find ways to shard that thing up horizontally. [0:17:12.0] CC: Is it possible though to use a different data store than etcd for Kubernetes? [0:17:18.4] JB: The things that I'm aware of here and there may be more and I may not be a 100% up to date, is I do know that the Azure folks created a proxy layer that speaks to the etcd protocol, but that is actually implemented on the backend using CosmoDB. That approach there was to essentially create a translation layer. Then Rancher created this project, which is a little bit if you've – been added a bit of a fork of Kubernetes, where they're I believe using PostgresSQL as the database for Kubernetes. I haven't looked to see exactly how they ended up swapping that in. My guess is that there's some chewing gum and bailing wiring and it's quite a bit of effort for each version upgrade to be able to actually adapt that moving forward. Don't know for sure. I haven't looked deeply. [0:18:06.0] CC: Okay. Now I would love to philosophize a little bit, or maybe a lot about Kubernetes. In the spirit of thinking of different questions to ask, so I had a bunch of questions and then I was thinking, “How could I ask this question in a different way?” Maybe this is not the right “question.” Here is the way I came up with this question. We’re so divided out there. One camp loves Kubernetes, another camp, "So hard, so complicated, it’s so complex. Why even bother with it? I don't understand why people are using this." Basically, there is that sentiment that Kubernetes is complicated. I don't think anybody would refute that. Now is that even the right way to talk about Kubernetes? Is it even not supposed to be complicated? I mean, what kind of a tool is it that we are thinking, it should just work, it should be just be super simple. Is it true that it should be a super simple tool to use? [0:19:09.4] JB: I mean, that's a loaded question [inaudible]. Let me just first say that number one, if people are complaining, I mean, I'm stealing this from Tim [inaudible], who I think this is the way he takes some of these things in stride. If people are complaining, then you're relevant, right? If nobody is complaining, then nobody cares about what you're doing. I think that it's a good thing that folks are taking a critical look at Kubernetes. That means that they're taking a look at it, right? For five years in, Kubernetes is on an upswing. That's not going to necessarily last forever. I think we have work to do to continually earn Kubernetes’s place in the technology stack over time. Now that being said, Kubernetes is a super, super flexible tool. It can do so many things in so many different situations. It's used from everything from in retail stores across the tens of thousands of stores, any type of solutions. People are looking at it for telco, 5G. People are looking at it to even running it inside cars, which scares me, right? Then all the way up to folks like at CERN using it to do data analytics for hiring and physics, right? The technology that I look at that's probably most comparable to that is something like Linux. Linux is actually scalable from everything from a phone, all the way up to an IBM mainframe, but it's not easy, right? I mean, to be able to adapt it across all that things, you have to essentially download the kernel type, make config and then answer 5,000 questions, right, for those who haven't done that. It's not an easy thing to do. I think that a lot of times, people might be looking at Kubernetes at the wrong level to be able to say this should be simple. Nobody looks at the Linux kernel that you get from git cloning, Linux’s fork and compiling it and saying, “Yeah, this is too hard.” Of course it's hard. It's the Linux kernel. You expect that you're going to have a curated experience if you want something easy, right? Whether that be an Android phone or Ubuntu or what have you. I think to some degree, we're still in the early days where people are dealing with it perhaps at to raw level, versus actually dealing with it in a more opinionated way. Now I think the fascinating thing for Kubernetes is that it provides a lot of the extension points and patterns, so that we don't know exactly what those higher-level easier-to-use abstractions are going to look like, but we know, or at least we're pretty confident that we have the right tools and the right environment to be able to experiment our way there. I think we're not there yet, but we're set up for success. That's the first thing. The second thing is that Kubernetes introduces a whole bunch of different concepts and ideas and these things are different and uncomfortable for folks. It's hard to learn new things. It's hard for me to learn new things and it's hard for everybody to learn new things. When you compare Kubernetes to say, getting started with the modern front-end web development stack, with things like Babel and React and how do you deploy this and what are all these different options and it changes on a weekly basis. There's a hell of a lot in common actually between these two ecosystems. They're both really hard, they both introduce all these new concepts and you have to be embedded in it to really get it. Now that being said, if you just wanted take raw JavaScript, or jQuery and have at it, you can do it and you'll see on Hacker News articles every once in a while where people are like, “Hey, I've programmed my site with jQuery and it's just fine. I don't need all this new stuff,” right? Just like you'll see folks saying like, “I just SSH’d in and actually ran some stuff and it works fine. I don't need all this Kubernetes stuff.” If that works for you, that's great. Kubernetes doesn't have to solve every problem for every person. Then the next thing is that I think that there's a lot of people who've been solving these problems again and again and again and again, but they've been solving them in their own way. It's not uncommon when you look at back-end systems, to join a company, look at what they've built and found that it's a complicated, bespoke system of chewing gum and baling wire with maybe a little bit Ansible, maybe a little bit of Puppets and bash. Everybody has built their own, complex, overwrought system to do a lot of the stuff that Kubernetes does. I think one of the values that we see here is that these things are complex, unique complex to do it, but shared complexity is more valuable than personal complexity. If we can agree on some of these concepts, then that's something that can be leveraged widely and it will fade to the background over time, versus having everybody invent their own complex system every time they need to solve these problems. With that all said, we got a ton of work to do. It's not like we're done here and I'm not going to actually sit here and say Kubernetes is easy, or that every complex thing is absolutely necessary and that we can't find ways to simplify it. We clearly can. I just think that when folks say, “Hey, I just want this to be easy." I think they're being a little bit too naïve, because it's a very difficult problem domain. [0:23:51.9] BL: I'd like to add on to that. I think about this a lot as well. Something that Joe said to me few years back, where Kubernetes is the platform for creating platforms, it is very applicable here. Where we are looking at as an industry, we need to stop looking at Kubernetes as some estimation. Your destination is really running your applications that give you pleasure, or make your business money. Kubernetes is a tool to enable us to think about our applications more, rather than the underlying ecosystem. We don't think about servers. We want to think about storage and networking, even things like finding things in your cluster. You don't think about that. Kubernetes gives it to you. If we start thinking about Kubernetes as a way to enable us to do better things, we can go back to what Joe said about Linux. Back whenever I started using Linux in the mid-90s, guess what? We compiled it. Make them big. That stuff was hard and it was slow. Now think about this, in my office I have three different Linux distributions running. You know what? I don't even think about it anymore. I don't think about configuring X. I don't think about anything. One thing that from Kubernetes is going to grow is it's going to – we're going to figure out these problems and it's going to allow us to think of these other crazy things, which is going to push the industry further. Think maybe 20 years from now if we're still running Kubernetes, who cares? It's just going to be there. We're going to think about some other problem and it could be amazing. This is good times. [0:25:18.2] JB: At one point. Sorry, the dog’s going to bark here. I mean, at one point people cared about some of the BIOS that they were running on our computers, right? That was something that you stressed out about. I mean, back in the bad old days when I was doing DOS gaming and you're like, “Oh, well this BIOS is incompatible with the –” IRQ's and all that. It's just background now. [0:25:36.7] CC: Yeah, I think about this too as a developer. I might have mentioned this before in this podcast. I have never gone from one job to another job and had to use the same deployment system. Every single job I've ever had, the deployment system is completely different, completely different set of tooling and completely different process. Just being able to walk out from one job to another job and be able to use the same platform for deployment, it must be amazing. On the flip side, being able to hire people that will join your organization already know how your deployment works, that has value in itself. It's a huge value that I don't think people talk about enough. [0:26:25.5] JB: Well honestly, this was one of the motivations for creating Kubernetes, is that I looked around Google early on and Google is really good at importing open source, circa 2000, right? This is like, “Hey, you want to use libpng, or you want to use this library, or whatever.” That was the type of open source that Google is really, really good at using. Then Google did things, like say release the Big Table paper. Then somebody went through and then created Cassandra out of it. Maybe there's some ideas in Cassandra that actually build on top of big table, or you're looking at MapReduce versus Hadoop. All of a sudden, you found that these things diverge and Google had zero ability to actually import open source, circa 2010, right? It could not back import systems, because the operational characteristics of these things were solely alien when compared to something like Borg. You see this also, like we would acquire companies and it would take those companies way too long to be able to essentially re-platform themselves on top of Borg, because it was just so different. This is one of the reasons, honestly, why we ended up doing something like GCE is to actually have a platform that was actually more familiar from acquisition. It's one of the reasons we did it. Then also introducing Kubernetes, it's not Borg. It's a cousin of Borg inside of Google. For those who don't know, Borg is the container system that’s been in production at Google for probably 15 years now, and the spiritual grandfather to Kubernetes in a lot of ways. A lot of the ideas that you learn from Kubernetes are applicable to Borg. It's not nearly as big a leap for people to actually change between them, as it was before, Kubernetes was out there. [0:27:58.6] MG: Joe, I got a similar question, because it seems to be like you're a platform builder. You've worked on GCE, Kubernetes obviously. If you would be talking to another platform architect or builder, what would be something that you would recommend to them based on your experiences? What is a key ingredient, technically speaking of a platform that you should be building today, or the main thing, or the lesson learned that you had from building those platforms, like technical advice, if you will? [0:28:26.8] JB: I mean, that's a really good question. I think in my mind, the mark of a good platform is when people can use it to do things that you hadn't imagined when you were building it, right? The goal here is that you want a platform to be a force multiplier. You wanted to enable people to do amazing things. You compare, again the Linux kernel, even something as simple as our electrical grid, right? The folks who established those standards, God knows how long ago, right? A 150 years ago or whenever, the whole Tesla versus Thomas Edison, [inaudible]. Nobody had any idea the long-term impact that would have on society over time. I think that's the definition of a successful platform in my mind. You got to keep that in mind, right? I think that for me, a lot of times people design for the first five minutes at the expense of the next five years. I've seen in a lot of times where you design for hey, I'm getting a presentation. I want to be able to fit something amazing on one slot. You do it, but then all of a sudden somebody wants to do something different. They want to go off course, they want to go off the rails, they want to actually experiment and the thing is just brittle. It's like, “Hey, it does this. It doesn't do anything else. Do you want to do something else? Sorry, this isn't the tool for you.” For me, I think that's a trap, right? Because it's easy to get it early users based on that very curated experience. It's hard to keep those users as they actually start using the thing in anger, as they start interfacing with the real world, as they deal with things that you didn't think of as a platform. I'm always thinking about how can every that you put in the platform be used in multiple ways? How can you actually make these things be composable building blocks, because then that gives you the opportunity for folks to actually compose them in ways that you didn't imagine, starting out. I think that's some of it. I started my career at Microsoft working on Internet Explorer. The fascinating thing about Microsoft is that through and through and through and through Microsoft is a platform company. It started with DOS and Windows and Office, but even though Office is viewed as a platform inside of Microsoft. They fundamentally understand in their bones the benefit of actually starting that platform flywheel. It was really interesting to actually be doing this for the first browser wars of IE versus Netscape when I started my own career, to actually see the fact that Microsoft always saw Internet Explorer as a platform, whereas I think Netscape didn't really get it in the same way, right? They didn't understand the potential, I think in the way that Microsoft did it. For me, I mean, just being where you start your career, oftentimes you actually sets your patterns in terms of how you look at things over time. I think a lot of this platform thinking comes from just imprinting when I was a baby developer, I think. I don't know. It takes a lot of time to really internalize that stuff. [0:31:14.1] BL: The lesson here is this a good one, is that when we're building things that are way bigger than us, don't think of your product as the end goal. Think of it as an enabler. When it's an enabler, that's where you get that X multiplier. Then that's where you get all the residuals. Microsoft actually is a great example of it. My gosh. Just think of what Microsoft has been able to do with the power of Office? [0:31:39.1] JB: Yeah. I look at something like VB in the Microsoft world. We still don't have VB for the cloud era. We still haven't created that. I think there's still opportunity there to actually strike. VB back in the day, for those who weren't there, struck this amazing balance of being easy to get started with, but also something that could actually grow with you over time, because it had all these extension mechanisms where you could actually – there's the marketplace controls that you could buy, you could partner with other developers that were writing C or C++. It was an incredible platform. Then they leverage to Office to extend the capabilities of VB. It's an amazing ecosystem. Sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you, Bryan. [0:32:16.0] BL: Oh, no. That's all good. I get as excited about it as you do whenever I think about it. It's a pretty exciting place to be. [0:32:21.8] JB: Yeah. I'll talk to VC's, because I did a startup and the EIR thing and I'll have them ask me things like, “Hey, where should we invest in the Kubernetes space?” My answer is using the BS analogy like, “You got to go where the puck is going.” Invest in the things that Kubernetes enables. What are the things that people can do now that they couldn't do pre-Kubernetes? Those are the things where we're going to see the explosion of growth. It's not about the Kubernetes. It's really about a larger ecosystem that Kubernetes is the seed crystal for. [0:32:56.2] BL: For those of you listening, if you want to get anything out of here, rewind back about 20 seconds and play that over and over again, what Joe just said. [0:33:04.2] MG: Yeah. This was brilliant. [0:33:05.9] BL: It’s where the puck is going. It's not where we are now. We're building for the future. We're not building for now. [0:33:11.1] MG: I'm looking at this tweetable quotes here, the last 20 seconds, so many tweetable quotes. We have to decide which ones to tweet then. [0:33:18.5] CC: Well, we’ll tweet them all. [0:33:20.0] MG: Oh, yes. [0:33:21.3] JB: Here’s another thing. Here’s another piece of career advice. Successful people are good storytellers. You can have the most beautiful technology, if you can't tell the human story about it, about what it does for folks, then nobody will care. I spend a lot of the time on Twitter and probably too much time, if you ask my family. That medium of being able to actually distill your thoughts down into something that is tweetable, quotable, really potent, that is a skill that's worth developing and it's a skill that's worth valuing. Because there's things that are rolling around in my head and I still haven't found a way to get them into a tweet. At some point, I'll figure it out and it'll be a thing. It takes a lot of time to build that skill to be able to refine like that. [0:34:08.5] CC: I want to say an anecdote of myself. I interview a small – so tiny startup, maybe less than 10 people at the time in Cambridge back when I lived up there. The guy was borderline wanting to hire me and no. I sent him an e-mail to try to influence his decision and it was a long-ass e-mail. They said, “No, thank you.” Then I think we had a good rapport. I said, well, anything you can tell me about your decision then? He said something along the lines like, I was too verbose. That was pre-Twitter. Twitter I think existed, but it was at the very beginning, I wasn't using it. Yeah, people. Be concise. Decision-makers don't have time to read long things. You need to be able to convey your message in short sentences, few sentences. It's crucial. [0:35:07.5] BL: All right, so we're nearing the end. I want to ask another question, because these are random questions for Joe. Joe, it is the week before KubeCon North America 2019 and today is actually an interesting day. A couple of neat things happened today. We had Docker. It was neat. Docker split somewhat and it sold part of it and now they're going to be a tools company. That's neat. We're all still trying decoding what that actually is. Here's the neat piece, Apple released a laptop that can have 64 gigabytes of memory. [0:35:44.4] MG: Has an escape key. [0:35:45.7] BL: It has an escape key. [0:35:47.6] MG: This is brilliant. [0:35:48.6] BL: Yeah. I think the question was what do you think about that? [0:35:52.8] JB: Okay. Well, so first of all, I mean, Docker is fascinating and I think this is – there's a lot of lessons there and I'm not sure I'm the one to tell them. I think it's easy to armchair-quarterback these things. It's hard to live that story. I think that it's fun to play that what-if game. I think it does show that this stuff is hard. You can have everything in your grasp and then just have it all slip away. I think that's not anybody's fault. It's just there's different strategies, different approaches in how this stuff plays out over time. On the laptop thing, I think my current laptop has 16 gigs of RAM. One of the things that we're seeing is that as we move towards a microservices world, I gave a talk about this probably three or four years ago. As we move to a microservices world, I think there's one stage where you create a bunch of microservices, but you still view those things as an app. You say, "This microservice belongs to this app." Within a mature organization, those things start to grow and eventually what you find is that you have services that are actually useful for multiple apps. Your entire production infrastructure becomes this web of services that are calling each other. Apps are just entry points into these things at different points of that web of infrastructure. This is the way that things work at Google. When you see companies that are microservices-based, let's take an Uber, or Lyft or an Airbnb. As they diversify the set of products that they're offering, you know they're not running completely independent stacks. You know that there's places where these things connect to behind the scenes in a microservices world. What does that mean for developers? What it means is that you can no longer fit an entire company's worth of infrastructure on your laptop anymore. Within a certain constraint, you can go through and actually say, “Hey, I can bring up this canonical cut of microservices. I can bring that up on my laptop, but it will have dependencies that I either have to actually call into the prod dependencies, call into specialized staging, or mock those things out, so that I can actually run this thing locally and develop it.” With 64 gig of RAM, I can run more on my laptop, right? There's a little bit of kick in that can down the road in terms of okay, there's this race between more microservicey versus how much I can port on my laptop. The interesting thing is that where is this going to end? Are we going to have the ability to bring more and more with your laptop? Are you going to be able to run in the split brain thing across like there's people who will create network connections between these things? Or are we going to move to a world where you're doing more development on cluster, in the cloud and your laptop gets thinner and thinner, right? Either you absolutely need 64 gig because you're pushing up against the boundaries of what you can do on your laptop, or you've given up and it's all running in the cloud. Yet anyways, you might as well just use a Chromebook. It's fascinating that we're seeing this divergence of scaling up, versus actually moving stuff to the cloud. I can tell you at Google, a lot of folks, even developers can actually be super, super productive with something relatively thin like Chromebook, because there's so many tools there that really are targeted at doing all that stuff remotely, in Google's production data centers and such. That's I think the interesting implication from a developer point of view with 64 gigabytes of RAM. What you going to do Bryan? You're going to get the 64 gig Mac? You’re going to do it? [0:39:11.2] BL: It’s already coming. They'll be here week after next. [0:39:13.2] JB: You already ordered it? You are such an Apple fanboy. Oh, man. [0:39:18.6] BL: Oh, I'm actually so not to go too much into it. I am a fan of lots of memory. You know what? We work in this cloud native world. Any given week, I’ll work on four to five projects. I'm lazy. I don't want to shut any of them down. Now with 64 gigs, I don't have to shut anything down. [0:39:37.2] JB: It was so funny. When I was at Microsoft, everybody actually focused on Microsoft Windows boot time. They’re like, “We got to make it boot faster. We got to make it boot faster.” I'm like, I don't boot that often. I just want the thing to resume from sleep, right? If you can make that reliable on that theme. [0:39:48.7] CC: Yeah. I frequently have to restart my computer, because of memory issues. I don't want to know which app is taking up memory. I have a tool that I can look up, but I just shut it down, flush the memory. I do have a question related to Docker. Kubernetes, I don't know if it's right to say that Kubernetes is so reliant on Docker, because I know it works with other container technologies as well. In the worst case scenario, it's obviously, I have no reason to predict this, but in the worst case scenario where Docker, let's say is discontinued, how would that affect Kubernetes? [0:40:25.3] JB: Early on when we were doing Kubernetes and you're in this relationship with a company like Docker, I looked at what Docker was doing and you're like, “Okay, where is the real value here over time?” In my mind, I thought that the interface with developers that distributed kernel, that API surface area of Kubernetes, that was really the thing and that a lot of the Docker stuff was over time going to fade to the background. I think we've seen that happen, because when we talk about production systems, we definitely have moved past Docker and we have the CRI, we have Container D, which it was essentially built by Docker, donated to the CNCF as it made its way towards graduation. I think it's graduated now. The governance ties to Docker have been severed at this point. In production systems for Kubernetes, we've moved past that. I still think that there's developer experiences oftentimes reliant on Docker and things like Docker files. I think we're moving past that also. I think that if Docker were to disappear off the face of the earth, there would be some adjustment, but I think we have the right toolkits and the right systems to be able to do that. Some of that is open sourced by Docker as part of the Moby project. The whole Docker file evaluation flow is actually in this thing called Build Kit that you can actually use in different contexts outside of the Docker game. I think there's a lot of the building action. The thing that I think is the most influential thing that actually I think will stand the test of time is the Docker container image format. That artifact that you upload, that you download, the registry APIs. Now those things have been codified and are moving forward slowly under the OCI, the open container initiative project, which is a little bit of a sister foundation niche type of thing to the CNCF. I think that's the influence over time. Then related to that, I think the world should be a little bit worried about Docker Hub and what that means for Docker Hub over time, because that is not a cheap service to run. It's done as a public good, similar to github. If the commercial aspects of that are not healthy, then I think it might be disruptive if we see something bad happen with Docker Hub itself. I don't know what exactly the replacement for that would be overnight. That'd be incredibly disruptive. [0:42:35.8] CC: Should be Harbour. [0:42:37.7] JB: I mean, Harbour is a thing, but somebody's got a run it and somebody's got to pay the bandwidth bills, right? Thank you to Docker for paying those bandwidth bills, because it's actually been good for not just Docker, but for our entire ecosystem to be able to do that. I don't know what that looks like moving forward. I think it's going to be – I mean, maybe github with github artifacts and it's going to pick up the slack. We’re going to have to see. [0:42:58.6] MG: Good. I have one last question from my end. Totally different topic, not Docker at all. Or maybe, depends on your answer to it. The question is you're very technical person, what is the technology, or the stuff that your brain is currently spinning on, if you can disclose? Obviously, no secrets. What keeps you awake at night, in your brain? [0:43:20.1] JB: I mean, I think the thing that – a couple of things, is that stuff that's just completely different from our world, I think is interesting. I think we've entered at a place where programming computers, and so stuff is so specialized. That again, I talk about if you made me be a front-end developer, I would flail for several months trying to figure out how to even be productive, right? I think similar when we look at something like machine learning, there's a lot of stuff happening there really fast. I understand the broad strokes, but I can't say that I understand it to any deep degree. I think it's fascinating and exciting the amount of diversity in this world and stuff to learn. Bryan's asked me in the past. It's like, “Hey, if you're going to quit and start a new career and do something different, what would it be?” I think I would probably do something like generative art, right? Essentially, there's folks out there writing these programs to generate art, a little bit of the moral descendant of Demoscene that was I don't know. I wonder was the Demoscene happened, Bryan. When was that? [0:44:19.4] BL: Oh, mid 90s, or early 90s. [0:44:22.4] JB: That’s right. I was never super into that. I don't think I was smart enough. It's crazy stuff. [0:44:27.6] MG: I actually used to write demoscenes. [0:44:28.8] JB: I know you did. I know you did. Okay, so just for those not familiar, the Demoscene was essentially you wrote essentially X86 assembly code to do something cool on screen. It was all generated so that the amount of code was vanishingly small. It was this puzzle/art/technical tour de force type of thing. [0:44:50.8] BL: We wrote trigonometry in a similar – that's literally what we did. [0:44:56.2] JB: I think a lot of that stuff ends up being fun. Stuff that's related to our world, I think about how do we move up the stack and I think a lot of folks are focused on the developer experience, how do we make that easier. I think one of the things through the lens of VMware and Tanzu is looking at how does this stuff start to interface with organizational mechanics? How does the typical enterprise work? How do we actually make sure that we can start delivering a toolset that works with that organization, versus working against the organization? That I think is an interesting area, where it's hard because it involves people. Back-end people like programmers, they love it because they don't have to deal with those pesky people, right? They get to define their interfaces and their interfaces are pure and logical. I think that UI work, UX work, anytime when you deal with people, that's the hardest thing, because you don't get to actually tell them how to think. They tell you how to think and you have to adapt to it, which is actually different from a lot of back-end here in logical type of folks. I think there's an aspect of that that is user experience at the consumer level. There's developer experience and there's a whole class of things, which is maybe organizational experience. How do you interface with the organization, versus just interfacing, whether it's individuals in the developer, or the end-user point of view? I don't know if as an industry, we actually have our heads wrapped around that organizational limits. [0:46:16.6] CC: Well, we have arrived at the end. Makes me so sad, because we could talk for easily two more hours. [0:46:24.8] JB: Yeah, we could definitely keep going. [0:46:26.4] CC: We’re going to bring you back, Joe. Don’t worry. [0:46:28.6] JB: For sure. Anytime. [0:46:29.9] CC: Or do worry. All right, so we are going to release these episodes right after KubeCon. Glad everybody could be here today. Thank you. Make sure to subscribe and follow us on Twitter. Follow us everywhere and suggest episode topics for us. Bye and until next time. [0:46:52.3] JB: Thank you so much. [0:46:52.9] MG: Bye. [0:46:54.1] BL: Bye. Thank you. [END OF EPISODE] [0:46:55.1] ANNOUNCER: Thank you for listening to The Podlets Cloud Native Podcast. Find us on Twitter at https://twitter.com/ThePodlets and on the http://thepodlets.io/ website, where you'll find transcripts and show notes. We'll be back next week. Stay tuned by subscribing. [END]See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

With the rising interest in GCE, understanding the current research landscape could be useful for policy-makers, educators and scholars who seek to build upon the existing body of knowledge and develop it in new directions. The global increase of the incorporation of Global Citizenship Education (GCE) related contents in education systems in recent decades has generated a vast body of scholarship, both empirical and theoretical. An explanation for the rise in GCE internationally is often described as a response to economic, social and political changes that have made countries more interconnected through enhanced international mobility and financial interdependency. Globalization is claimed to lead to more diverse societies that require engagement with broader, more inclusive conceptions of citizenship, thus leading to the need of incorporation GCE into national curricula to various extents. As scholarship in this field had developed accordingly, there is a need for a systematic analysis of the topics and sub-fields that emerged and examined within this broad concept. We performed a systematic review of research dealing with Global Citizenship Education (GCE) between 2006-2017 using Natural Language Processing (NLP) followed by network analysis to record and interpret the development of this field of research and highlight the trajectories of the current academic scholarship within teachers' education. The analysis showed how studies surrounding GCE being discussed in the scholarship, forming intricate, and encompassing distinct areas such as education for sustainable development and critical thinking. We also highlight some notable omissions in the contemporary research, topics that appear to be under-represented in the research on GCE. Considering the rising interest in GCE, understanding the current research landscape could be useful for policy-makers, educators and scholars who seek to build upon the existing body of knowledge and develop it in new directions.

Agradece a este podcast tantas horas de entretenimiento y disfruta de episodios exclusivos como éste. ¡Apóyale en iVoox! Los únicos acorazados tipo Dreadnought españoles fueron el España, Alfonso XIII (después España) y Jaime I. Fueron los buques de este tipo más pequeños jamás construidos. Participaron en la Guerra del Rif, donde el primer España se perdió, y en la GCE, donde el España (ex-Alfonso XIII) fue a parar al bando golpista, y el Jaime I al bando republicano. Esto es Barcos-10 Con Antonio Gómez @antogom1 Búscanos en http://casusbelli.top Y también en: Facebook, nuestra página es @casusbellipodcast https://www.facebook.com/CasusBelliPodcast Telegram, nuestro canal es @casusbellipodcast https://t.me/casusbellipodcast Nuestro chat de aviones es https://t.me/aviones10 Twitter, como @casusbellipod https://twitter.com/CasusBelliPod Pinterest, como @casusbellipod, https://es.pinterest.com/casusbellipod ¿Queréis contarnos algo? También puedes escribirnos a casus.belli.pod@gmail.com Si te ha gustado, y crees que nos lo merecemos, nos sirve mucho que nos des un like, que es el corazoncito que sale en el episodio en el móvil arriba a la derecha, si nos escuchas desde la app de ivoox, sea android o IOS. Muchas gracias por escucharnos, y hasta la próxima. Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

Kubernetes Joe Beda @jbeda | Heptio | eightypercent.net Show Notes: 00:51 - What is Kubernetes? Why does it exist? 07:32 - Kubernetes Cluster; Cluster Autoscaling 11:43 - Application Abstraction 14:44 - Services That Implement Kubernetes 16:08 - Starting Heptio 17:58 - Kubernetes vs Services Like Cloud Foundry and OpenShift 22:39 - Getting Started with Kubernetes 27:37 - Working on the Original Internet Explorer Team Resources: Google Compute Engine Google Container Engine Minikube Kubernetes: Up and Running: Dive into the Future of Infrastructure by Kelsey Hightower, Brendan Burns, and Joe Beda Joe Beda: Kubecon Berlin Keynote: Scaling Kubernetes: How do we grow the Kubernetes user base by 10x? Wordpress with Helm Sock Shop: A Microservices Demo Application Kelsey Hightower Keynote: Kubernetes Federation Joe Beda: Kubernetes 101 AWS Quick Start for Kubernetes by Heptio Open Source Bridge: Enter the coupon code PODCAST to get $50 off a ticket! The conference will be held June 20-23, 2017 at The Eliot Center in downtown Portland, Oregon. Transcript: CHARLES: Hello everybody and welcome to The Frontside Podcast, Episode 70. With me is Elrick Ryan. ELRICK: Hey, what's going on? CHARLES: We're going to get started with our guest here who many of you may have heard of before. You probably heard of the technology that he created or was a key part of creating, a self-described medium deal. [Laughter] JOE: Thanks for having me on. I really appreciate it. CHARLES: Joe, here at The Frontside most of what we do is UI-related, completely frontend but obviously, the frontend is built on backend technology and we need to be running things that serve our clients. Kubernetes is something that I think I started hearing about, I don't know maybe a year ago. All of a sudden, it just started popping up in my Twitter feed and I was like, "Hmm, that's a weird word," and then people started talking more and more about it and move from something that was behind me into something that was to the side and now it's edging into our peripheral vision more and more as I think more and more people adopt it, to build things on top of it. I'm really excited to have you here on the show to just talk about it. I guess we should start by saying what is the reason for its existence? What are the unique set of problems that you were encountering or noticed that everybody was encountering that caused you to want to create this? JOE: That's a really good set up, I think just for way of context, I spent about 10 years at Google. I learned how to do software on the server at Google. Before that, I was at Microsoft working on Internet Explorer and Windows Presentation Foundation, which maybe some of your listeners had to actually go ahead and use that. I learned how to write software for the server at Google so my experience in terms of what it takes to build and deploy software was really warped by that. It really doesn't much what pretty much anybody else in the industry does or at least did. As my career progressed, I ended up starting this project called Google Compute Engine which is Google's virtual machine as a service, analogous to say, EC2. Then as that became more and more of a priority for the company. There was this idea that we wanted internal Google developers to have a shared experience with external users. Internally, Google didn't do anything with virtual machines hardly. Everything was with containers and Google had built up some really sophisticated systems to be able to manage containers across very large clusters of computers. For Google developers, the interface to the world of production and how you actually launched off and monitor and maintain it was through this toolset, Borg and all these fellow travelers that come along with it inside of Google. Nobody really actually managed machines using traditional configuration management tools like Puppet or Chef or anything like that. It's a completely different experience. We built a compute engine, GCE and then I had a new boss because of executive shuffle and he spun up a VM and he'd been at Google for a while. His reaction to the thing was like, "Now, what?" I was like I'm sitting there at the root prompt go and like, "I don't know what to do now." It turns out that inside of Google that was actually a common thing. It just felt incredibly primitive to actually have a raw VM that you could have SSH into because there's so much to be done above that to get to something that you're comfortable with building a production grade service on top of. The choice as Google got more and more serious about cloud was to either have everybody inside of Google start using raw VMs and live the life that everybody outside of Google's living or try and bring the experience around Borg and this idea of very dynamic, container-centric, scheduled-cluster thinking bring that outside of Google. Borg was entangled enough with the rest of Google systems that sort of porting that directly and externalizing that directly wasn't super practical. Me and couple of other folks, Brendan Burns and Craig McLuckie pitched this crazy idea of starting a new open source project that borrowed from a lot of the ideas from Borg but really melded it with a lot of the needs for folks outside of Google because again, Google is a bit of a special case in so many ways. The core problem that we're solving here is how do you move the idea of deploying software from being something that's based on these physical concepts like virtual machines, where the amount of problems that you have to solve, to actually get that thing up and running is actually pretty great. How do we move that such that you have a higher, more logical set of abstractions that you're dealing with? Instead of worrying about what kernel you're running on, instead of worrying about individual nodes and what happens if a node goes down, you can instead just say, "Make sure this thing is running," and the system will just do its best to make sure that things are running and then you can also do interesting things like make sure 10 of these things are running, which is at Google scale that ends up being important. CHARLES: When you say like a thing, you're talking about like a database server or API server or --? JOE: Yeah, any process that you could want to be running. Exactly. The abstraction that you think about when you're deploying stuff into the cloud moves from a virtual machine to a process. When I say process, I mean like a process plus all the things that it needs so that ends up being a container or a Docker image or something along those lines. Now the way that Google does it internally slightly different than how it's done with Docker but you can squint at these things and you can see a lot of parallels there. When Docker first came out, it was really good. I think at Docker and containers people look for three things out of it. The first one is that they want a packaged artifact, something that I can create, run on my laptop, run in a data center and it's mostly the same thing running in both places and that's an incredibly useful thing, like on your Mac you have a .app and it's really a directory but the finder treats it as you can just drag it around and the thing runs. Containers are that for the server. They just have this thing that you can just say, run this thing on the server and you're pretty sure that it's going to run. That's a huge step forward and I think that's what most folks really see in the value with respect to Docker. Other things that folks look at with containerized technology is a level of efficiency of being able to pack a lot of stuff onto a little bit of hardware. That was the main driver for Google. Google has so many computers that if you improve utilization by 1%, that ends up being real money. Then the last thing is, I think a lot of folks look at this as a security boundary and I think there's some real nuance conversations to have around that. The goal is to take that logical infrastructure and make it such that, instead of talking about raw VMs, you're actually talking about containers and processes and how these things relate to each other. Yet, you still have the flexibility of a tool box that you get with an infrastructure level system versus if you look at something like Heroku or App Engine or these other platform as a service. Those things are relatively fixed function in terms of their architectures that you can build. I think the container cluster stuff that you see with things like Kubernetes is a nice middle ground between raw VMs and a very, very opinionated platform as a service type of thing. It ends up being a building block for building their more specialized experiences. There's a lot to digest there so I apologize. CHARLES: Yeah, there's a lot to digest there but we can jump right into digesting it. You were talking about the different abstractions where you have your hardware, your virtual machine and the containers that are running on top of that virtual machine and then you mentioned, I think I'm all the way up there but then you said Kubernetes cluster. What is the anatomy of a Kubernetes cluster and what does that entail? And what can you do with it? JOE: When folks talk about Kubernetes, I think there's two different audiences and it's important to talk about the experience from each audience. There's the audience from the point of view of what it takes to actually run a cluster -- this is a cluster operator audience -- then there's the audience in terms of what it takes to use a cluster. Assuming that somebody else is running a cluster for me, what does it look like for me to go ahead and use this thing? This is really different from a lot of different dev app tools which really makes these things together. We've tried to create a clean split here. I'm going to skip past what it means to launch and run a Kubernetes cluster because it turns out that over time, this is going to be something that you can just have somebody else do for you. It's like running your own MySQL database versus using RDS in Amazon. At some point, you're going to be like, "You know what, that's a pain in the butt. I want to make that somebody else's problem." When it comes to using the cluster, pretty much what it comes down to is that you can tell a cluster. There's an API to a cluster and that API is sort of a spiritual cousin to something like the EC2 API. You can talk to this API -- it's a RESTful API -- and you can say, "Make sure that you have 10 of these container images running," and then Kubernetes will make sure that ten of those things are running. If a node goes down, it'll start another one up and it will maintain that. That's the first piece of the puzzle. That creates a very dynamic environment where you can actually program these things coming and going, scaling up and down. The next piece of the puzzle that really, really starts to be necessary then is that if you have things moving around, you need a way to find them. There is built in ideas of defining what a service is and then doing service discovery. Service discovery is a fancy name for naming. It's like I have a name for something, I want to look that up to an IP address so that I can talk to it. Traditionally we use DNS. DNS is problematic in the super dynamic environments so a lot of folks, as they build backend systems within the data center, they really start moving past DNS to something that's a lot more dynamic and purpose-built for that. But you can think about it in your mind as a fancy super-fast DNS. CHARLES: The customer is itself something that's abstract so I can change it state and configure it and say, "I want 10 instances of Postgres running," or, "I want between five and 15 and it will handle all of that for you." How do you then make it smart so that you can react to load, for example like all of the sudden, this thing is handling more load so I need to say... What's the word I'm looking for, I need to handle -- JOE: Autoscale? CHARLES: Yeah, autoscale. Are there primitives for that? JOE: Exactly. Kubernetes itself was meant to be a tool box that you can build on top of. There are some common community-built primitives for doing it's called -- excuse the nomenclature here because there's a lot of it in Kubernetes and I can define it -- Horizontal Pod Autoscaling. It's this idea that you can have a set of pods and you want to tune the number of replicas to that pod based on load. That's something that's built in. But now maybe you're cluster, you don't have enough nodes in your cluster as you go up and down so there's this idea of cluster autoscaling where I want to add more capacity that I'm actually launching these things into. Fundamentally, Kubernetes is built on top of virtual machines so at the base, there's a bunch of virtual or physical machines hardware that's running and then it's the idea of how do I schedule stuff into that and then I can pack things into that cluster. There's this idea of scaling the cluster but then also scaling workloads running on top of the cluster. If you find that some of these algorithms or methods for how you want to scale things when you want to launch things, how you want to hook them up, if those things don't work for you, the Kubernetes system itself is programmable so you can build your own algorithms for how you want to launch and control things. It's really built from the get go to be an extensible system. CHARLES: One question that's keeps coming up is as I hear you describing these things is the Kubernetes cluster then, it's not application-oriented so you could have multiple applications running on a single cluster? JOE: Very much so. CHARLES: How do you then layer on your application abstraction on top of this cluster abstraction? JOE: An application is made up of a bunch of running bits, whether it'd be a database. I think as we move towards microservices, it's not just going to be one set of code. It can be a bunch of sets of codes that are working together or bunch of servers that are working together. There are these ideas are like I want to run 10 of these things, I want to run five of these things, I want to run three of these things and then I want them to be able to find each other and then I want to take this thing and I want to expose it out to the internet through a load balancer on Amazon, for example. Kubernetes can help to set up all those pieces. It turns out that Kubernetes doesn't have an idea of an application. There is no actually object inside a Kubernetes called application. There is this idea of running services and exposing services and if you bring a bunch of services together, that ends up being an application. But in a modern world, you actually have services that can play double duty across applications. One of the things that I think is exciting about Kubernetes is that it can grow with you as you move from a single application to something that really becomes a service mesh, as your application, your company grows. Imagine that you have some sort of app and then you have your customer service portal for your internal employees. You can have those both being frontend applications, both running on a Kubernetes cluster, talking to a common backend with a hidden API that you don't expose to customers but it's something that's exposed to both of those frontends and then that API may talk to a database. Then as you understand your problems, you can actually spawn off different microservices that can be managed separately by different teams. Kubernetes becomes a platform where you can actually start with something relatively simple and then grow with that and have it stretch from single application to multiple service microservice-base application to a larger cluster that can actually stretch across multiple teams and there's a bunch of facilities for folks not stepping on each other's toes as they do this stuff. Just to be clear, this is what Kubernetes is as it's based. I think one of the powerful things that you can do is that there's a whole host to folks that are building more platform as a service like abstractions on top of Kubernetes. I'm not going to say it's a trivial thing but it's a relatively straightforward thing to build a Heroku-like experience on top of Kubernetes. But the great thing is that if you find that that Heroku experience, if some of the opinions that were made as part of that don't work for you, you can actually drop down to a level that's more useful than going all the way down to raw VM because right now, if you're running on Heroku and something doesn't work for you, it's like, "Here's a raw VM. Good luck with that." There's a huge cliff as you actually want to start coloring outside the lines for, as I mix my metaphors here for these platform services. ELRICK: What services that are out there that you can use that would implement Kubernetes? JOE: That's a great question. There are a whole host there. One of the folks in the community has pulled together a spreadsheet of all the different ways to install and run Kubernetes and I think there were something like 60 entries on it. It's an open source system. It's credibly adaptable in terms of running in all sorts of different mechanisms for places and there are really active startups that are helping folks to run that stuff. In terms of the easiest turnkey things, I would probably start with Google Container Engine, which is honestly one click. It fits within a Free Tier. It can get you up and running so that you can actually play with Kubernetes super easy. There's this thing from the folks at CoreOS called minikube that lets you run it on your laptop as a development environment. That's a great way to kick the tires. If you're on Amazon, my company Heptio has a quick start that we did with some of the Amazon community folks. It's a cloud formation template that launches a Kubernetes stack that you can get up and running and really understand what's happening. I think as users, understand what value it brings at the user level then they'll figure out whether they want to invest in terms of figuring out what the best place to run and the best way to run it for them is. I think my advice to folks would be find some way to start getting familiar with it and then decide if you have to go deep in terms of how to be a cluster operator and how to run the thing. ELRICK: Yup. That was going to be my next question. You just brought up your company, Heptio. What was the reason for starting that startup? JOE: Heptio was founded by Craig McLuckie, one of the other Kubernetes founders and me. We started about six months or seven months ago now. The goal here is to bring Kubernetes to enterprises and how do we bridge the gap of bringing some of this technology forward company thinking to think about companies like Google and Twitter and Facebook. They have a certain way of thinking about building a deployment software. How do we bring those ideas into more mainstream enterprise? How do we bridge that gap and we're really using doing Kubernetes as the tool to do that? We're doing a bunch of things to make that happen. The first being that we're offering training, support and services so right now, if companies want to get started today, they can engage with us and we can help them understand what makes sense there. Over time, we want to make that be more self-service, easier to do so that you actually don't have to hire someone like us to get started and to be successful there. We want to invest in the community in terms of making Kubernetes easier to approach, easier to run and then more applicable to a more diverse set of audiences. This conversation that we're having here, I'm hoping that at some point, we won't have to have this because Kubernetes will be easy enough and self-describing enough that folks won't feel like they have to dig deep to get started. Then the last thing that we're going to be doing is offering commercial services and software that really helps teach Kubernetes into the fabric of how large companies work. I think there's a set of tools that you need as you move from being a startup or a small team to actually dealing within the structure of a large enterprise and that's really where we're going to be looking to create and sell product. ELRICK: Gotcha. CHARLES: How does Kubernetes then compare in contrast to other technologies that we hear when we talk about integrating with the enterprise and having enterprise clients managing their own infrastructure things like Cloud Foundry, for example. From someone who's kind of ignorant of both, how do you discriminate between the two? JOE: Cloud Foundry is a more of a traditional platform as a service. There's a lot to like there and there are some places where the Kubernetes community and the Cloud Foundry community are starting to cooperate. There is a common way for provisioning and creating external services so you can say, "I want MySQL database." We're trying to make that idea of, "Give me MySQL database. I don't care who and where it's running." We're trying to make those mechanisms common across Cloud Foundry and Kubernetes so there is some effort going in there. But Cloud Foundry is more of a traditional platform as a service. It's opinionated in terms of the right way to create, launch, roll out, hooks services together. Whereas, Kubernetes is more of a building block type of thing. Kubernetes is, at least raw Kubernetes in some ways a more of a lower levels building block technology than something like Cloud Foundry. The most applicable competitor in this world to Cloud Foundry, I would say would be OpenShift from Red Hat. Open Shift is a set of extensions built on top of it. Right now, it's a little bit of a modified version of Kubernetes but over time that teams working to make it be a set of pure extensions on top of Kubernetes that adds a platform as a service layer on top of the container cluster layer. The experience for Open Shift will be comparable to the experience for Cloud Foundry. There's other folks like Microsoft just bought the small company called Deis. They offer a thing called Workflow which gives you a little bit of the flavor of a platform as a service also. There's multiple flavors of platforms built on top of Kubernetes that would be more apples to apples comparable to something like Cloud Foundry. Now the interesting thing with thing Deis' Workflow or Open Shift or some of the other platforms built on top of Kubernetes is that, again if you find yourself where that platform doesn't work for you for some reason, you don't have to throw out everything. You can actually start picking and choosing what primitives you want to drop down to in the Kubernetes world without having to go down to raw VMs. Whereas, Cloud Foundry really doesn't have a widely supported, sort of more raw interface to run in containers and services. It's kind of subtle. CHARLES: Yeah, it's kind of subtle. This is an analogy that just popped into my head while I was listening to you and I don't know if this is way off base. But when you were describing having... What was the word you used? You said a container clast --? It was a container clustered... JOE: Container orchestrator, container cluster. These are all -- CHARLES: Right and then kind of hearkening back to the beginning of our conversation where you were talking about being able to specify, "I want 10 of these processes," or an elastic amount of these processes that reminded me of Erlang VM and how kind of baked into that thing is the concept of these lightweight processes and be able to manage communication between these lightweight processes and also supervise these processes and have layers of supervisors supervising other supervisors to be able to declare a configuration for a set of processes to always be running. Then also propagate failure of those processes and escalate and stuff like that. Would you say that there is an analogy there? I know there are completely separate beast but is there a co-evolution there? JOE: I've never used Erlang in Anger so it's hard for me to speak super knowledgeably about it. For what I understand, I think there is a lot in common there. I think Erlang was originally built by Nokia for telecoms switches, I believe which you have these strong availability guarantees so any time when you're aiming for high availability, you need to decouple things with outside control loops and ways to actually coordinate across pieces of hardware and software so that when things fail, you can isolate that and have a blast radius for a failure and then have higher level mechanisms that can help recover. That's very much what happens with something like Kubernetes and container orchestrator. I think there's a ton of parallels there. CHARLES: I'm just trying to grasp at analogies of things that might be -- ELRICK: I think they call that the OTP, Open Telecom Platform or something like that in Erlang. CHARLES: Yeah, but it just got a lot of these things -- ELRICK: Very similar. CHARLES: Yeah, it seems very similar. ELRICK: Interestingly enough, for someone that's starting from the bottom, an initiated person to Kubernetes containers, Docker images, Docker, where would they start to ramp up themselves? I know you mentioned that you are writing a book --? JOE: Yes. ELRICK: -- 'Kubernetes: Up and Running'. Would that be a good place to start when it comes out or is there like another place they should start before they get there. What is your thoughts on that? JOE: Definitely, check out the book. This is a book that I'm writing with Kelsey Hightower who's one of the developer evangelists for Google. He is the most dynamic speaker I've ever seen so if you ever have a chance to see him live, it's pretty great. But Kelsey started this and he's a busy guy so he brought in Brendan Burns, one of the other Kubernetes co-founders and me to help finish that book off and that should be coming out soon. It's Kubernetes: Up and Running. Definitely check that out. There's a bunch of good tutorials out there also that start introducing you to a lot of the concepts in Kubernetes. I'm not going to go through all of those concepts right now. There's probably like half a dozen different concepts and terminology, things that you have to learn to really get going with it and I think that's a problem right now. There's a lot to import before you can get started. I gave a talk at the Kubernetes Conference in Berlin, a month or two ago and it was essentially like, yeah we got our work cut out for us to actually make the stuff applicable to wider audience. But if you want to see the power, I think one of the things that you can do is there's the system built on top of Kubernetes called Helm, H-E-L-M, like a ship's helm because we love our nautical analogies here. Helm is a package manager for Kubernetes and just like you can login to say, in Ubuntu machine and do apps get install MySQL and you have a database up and running. With Helm you can say, create and install 'WordPress install' on my Kubernetes cluster and it'll just make that happen. It takes this idea of package management of describing applications up to the next level. When you're doing regular sysadmin stuff, you can actually go through and do the system to [Inaudible] files or to [Inaudible] files and copy stuff out and use Puppet and Chef to orchestrate all of that stuff. Or you can take the stuff that sort of package maintainers for the operating system have done and actually just go ahead and say, "Get that installed." We want to be able to offer a similar experience at the cluster level. I think that's a great way to start seeing the power. After you understand all these concepts here is how easy you can make it to bring up and run these distributed systems that are real applications. The Weaveworks folks, there are company that do container networking and introspection stuff based out of London. They have this example application called Sock Shop. It's like the pet shop example but distributed and built to show off how you can build an application on top of Kubernetes that pulls a lot of moving pieces together. Then there's some other applications out there like that that give you a little bit of an idea of what things look like as you start using this stuff to its fullest extent. I would say start with something that feels concrete where you can start poking around and seeing how things work before you commit. I know some people are sort of depth first learners and some are breadth first learners. If you're depth first, go and read the book, go to Kubernetes documentation site. If you're breadth first, just start with an application and go from there. ELRICK: Okay. CHARLES: I think I definitely fall into that breadth first. I want to build something with it first before trying to manage my own cluster. ELRICK: Yeah. True. I think I watched your talk and I did watch one of Kelsey's talks: container management. There was stuff about replicators and schedulers and I was like, "The ocean just getting deeper and deeper," as I listened to his talk. JOE: Actually, I think this is one of the cultural gaps to bridge between frontend and backend thinking. I think a lot of backend folks end up being these depths first types of folks, where when they want to use a technology, they want to read all the source code before they first apply it. I'm sure everybody has met those type of developers. Then I think there's folks that are breadth first where they really just want to understand enough to be effective, they want to get something up and running, they want to like if they hit a problem, then they'll go ahead and fix that problem but other than that, they're very goal-oriented towards, I want to get this thing running. Kubernetes right now is kind of built by systems engineers for systems engineers and it shows so we have our work cut out for us, I think to bridge that gap. It's going to be an ongoing thing. ELRICK: Yeah, I'm like a depth first but I have to keep myself in check because I have to get work done as a developer. [Laughter] JOE: That sounds about right, yeah. Yeah, so you're held accountable for writing code. CHARLES: Yeah. That's where real learning happens when you're depth first but you've got deadlines. ELRICK: Yes. CHARLES: I think that's a very effective combination. Before we go, I wanted to switch topic away from Kubernetes for just a little bit because you mentioned something when we were emailing that, I guess in a different lifetime you were actually on the original IE team or at the very beginning of the Internet Explorer team at Microsoft? JOE: Yes, that's where I started my career. Back in '97, I've done a couple of internships at Microsoft and then went to join full time, moved up here to Seattle and I had a choice between joining the NT kernel team or the Internet Explorer team. This was after IE3 before IE4. I don't know if this whole internet thing is going to pan out but it looks like that gives you a lot of interesting stuff. You got to understand the internet, it wasn't an assumed thing back then, right? ELRICK: Yeah, that's true. JOE: I don't know, this internet thing. CHARLES: I know. I was there and I know that like old school IE sometimes gets a bad rap. It does get a bad rap for being a little bit of an albatross but if you were there for the early days of IE, it really was the thing that blew it wide open like people do not give credit. It was extraordinarily ahead of its time. That was [Inaudible] team that coin DHTML back to when it was called DHTML. I remember, actually using it for the first time, I think about '97 is about what I was writing raw HTML for everything. CSS wasn't even a thing hardly. When I realized, all these static things when we render them, they're etched in stone. The idea that every one of these properties which I already knew is now dynamic and completely reflected, just moment to moment. It was just eye-opening. It was mind blowing and it was kind of the beginning of the next 20 years. I want to just talk a little bit about that, about where those ideas came from and what was the impetus for that? JOE: Oh, man. There's so much history here. First of all, thank you for calling out. I think we did a lot of really interesting groundbreaking work then. I think the sin was not in IE6 as it was but in [inaudible]. I think the fact that -- CHARLES: IE6 was actually an amazing browser. Absolutely an amazing browser. JOE: And then the world moved past it, right? It didn't catch up. That was the problem. For its time when it was released, I was proud of that release. But four years on, things get a little bit long in the tooth. I think IE3 was based on rendering engine that was very static, very similar to Netscape at the time. The thing to keep in mind is that Netscape at that time, it would download a webpage, parse it and display it. There was no idea of a DOM at Netscape at that point so it would throw away a lot of the information and actually only store stuff that was very specific to the display context. Literally, when you resize the window for Netscape back then, it would actually reparse the original HTML to regenerate things. It wasn't even able to actually resize the window without going through and reparsing. What we did with IE4 -- and I joined sort of close to the tail on IE4 so I can't claim too much credit here -- is bringing some of the ideas from something like Visual Basic and merge those into the idea of the browser where you actually have this programming model which became the DOM of where your controls are, how they fit together, being able to live modify these things. This was all part and parcel of how people built Windows applications. It turns out that IE4 was the combination of the old IE3 rendering engine, sort of stealing stuff from there but then this project that was built as a bunch of Active X controls for Office called [inaudible]. As you smash that stuff together and turn it into a browser rendering engine, that browser rendering engine ended up being called Trident. That's the thing that got a nautical theme. I don't think it's connected and that's the thing that that I joined and started working on at the time. This whole idea that you have actually have this DOM, that you can modify a programmable representation of DHTML and have it be live updated on screen, that was only with IE4. I don't think anybody had done it at that point. The competing scheme from Netscape was this thing called layers where it was essentially multiple HTML documents where you could replace one of the HTML documents and they would be rendered on top of each other. It was awful and it lost to the mist of time. CHARLES: I remember marketing material about layers and hearing how layers was just going to be this wonderful thing but I don't ever remember actually, did they ever even ship it? JOE: I don't know if they did or not. The thing that you got to understand is that anybody who spent any significant amount of time at Microsoft, you just really internalize the idea of a platform like no place else. Microsoft lives and breathes platforms. I think sometimes it does them a disservice. I've been out of Microsoft for like 13 years now so maybe some of my knowledge is a little outdated here but I still have friends over there. But Microsoft is like the poor schmuck that goes to Vegas and pulls the slot machine and wins the jackpot on the first pull. I'm not saying that there wasn't a lot of hard work that went behind Windows but like they hit the goldmine with that from a platform point of view and then they essentially did it again with Office. You have these two incredibly powerful platforms that ended up being an enormous growth engine for the company over time so that fundamentally changed the world view of Microsoft where they really viewed everything as a platform. I think there were some forward thinking people at Netscape and other companies but I think, Microsoft early on really understood what it meant to be a platform and we saw back then what the web could be. One of the original IE team members, I'm going to give a shout out to him, Chris Wilson who's now on the Chrome team, I think. I don't know where he is these days. Chris was on the original IE team. He's still heavily involved in web standards. None of this stuff is a surprise to us. I look at some of the original so after we finished IE6, a lot of the IE team rolled off to doing Avalon which became Windows Presentation Foundation, which was really looking to sort of reinvent Windows UI, importing a bunch of the ideas from web and modern programming there. That's where we came up with XAML and eventually begat Silverlight for good or ill. But some of our original demos for Avalon, if you go back in time and look at that, that was probably... I don't know, 2000 or something like that. They're exactly the type of stuff that people are building with the web platform today. Back then, they'll flex with the thing. We're reinventing this stuff over and over again. I like where it's going. I think we're in a good spot right now but we see things like the Shadow DOM come up and I look at that and I'm like, "We had HTC controls which did a lot of Shadow DOM stuff like stuff in IE early on." These things get reinvented and refined over time and I think it's great but it's fascinating to be in the industry long enough that you can see these patterns repeat. CHARLES: It is actually interesting. I remember doing UI in C++ and in Java. We did a lot of Java and it was a long time. I felt like I was wandering in the wilderness of the web where I was like, "Oh, man. I just wish we had these capabilities of things that we could do in swing, 10 or 15 years ago," but the happy ending is that I really actually do feel we are in a place now, finally where you have options for it really is truly competitive as a developer experience to the way it was, these many years ago and it's also a testament just how compelling the deployment model of the web is, that people were willing to forgo all of that so they could distribute their applications really easily. JOE: Never underestimate the power of view source. CHARLES: Yeah. [Laughter] ELRICK: I think that's why this sort of conversations are very powerful, like going back in time and looking at the development up until now because like they say that people that don't know their history, they're doomed to repeat it. I think this is a beautiful conversation. JOE: Yeah. Because I've done that developer focused frontend type of stuff. I've done the backend stuff. One of the things that I noticed is that you see patterns repeat over and over again. Let's be honest, it probably more like a week, I was going to say a weekend and learn the React the other day and the way that it encapsulate state up and down, model view, it's like these things are like there's different twists on them that you see in different places but you see the same patterns repeat again and again. I look at the way that we do scheduling in Kubernetes. Scheduling is this idea that you have a bunch of workloads that have a certain amount of CPU and RAM that they require like you want to play this Tetris game of being able to fit these things in, you look at scheduling like that and there are echoes for how layout happens in a browser. There is a deeper game coming on here and as you go through your career and if you're like me and you always are interested in trying new things, you never leave it all behind. You always see things that influence your thinking moving forward. CHARLES: Absolutely. I kind of did the opposite. I started out on the backend and then moved over into the frontend but there's never been any concept that I was familiar with working on server side code that did not come to my aid at some point working on the frontend. I can appreciate that fully. ELRICK: Yup. I can agree with the same thing. I jump all around the board, learning things that I have no use currently but somehow, they come back to help me. CHARLES: That will come back to help you. You thread them together at some point. ELRICK: Yup. CHARLES: As they said in one of my favorite video games in high school, Mortal Kombat there is no knowledge that is not power. JOE: I was all Street Fighter. CHARLES: Really? [Laughter] JOE: I cut class in high school and went to play Street Fighter at the mall. CHARLES: There is no knowledge that isn't power except for... I'm not sure that the knowledge of all these little mashy key buttons combinations, really, I don't think there's much power in that. JOE: Well, the Konami code still shows up all the time, right? [Laughter] CHARLES: I'm surprised how that's been passed down from generation to generation. JOE: You still see it show up in places that you wouldn't expect. One of the sad things that early on in IE, we had all these Internet Explorer Easter eggs where if you type this right combination into the address bar, do this thing and you clicked and turn around three times and face west, you actually got this cool DHTML thing and those things are largely disappearing. People don't make Easter eggs like they used to. I think there's probably legal reasons for making sure that every feature is as spec. But I kind of missed those old Easter eggs that we used to find. CHARLES: Yeah, me too. I guess everybody save their Easter eggs for April 1st but -- JOE: For the release notes, [inaudible]. CHARLES: All right. Well, thank you so much for coming by JOE. I know I'm personally excited. I'm going to go find one of those Kubernetes as a services that you mentioned and try and do a little breadth first learning but whether you're depth first or breadth first, I say go to it and thank you so much for coming on the show. JOE: Well, thank you so much for having me on. It's been great. CHARLES: Before we go, there is actually one other special item that I wanted to mention. This is the Open Source Bridge which is a conference being held in Portland, Oregon on the 20th to 23rd of June this year. The tracks are activism, culture hacks, practice and theory and podcast listeners may be offered a discount code for $50 off of the ticket by entering in the code 'podcast' on the Event Brite page, which we will link to in the show notes. Thank you, Elrick. Thank you, Joe. Thank you everybody and we will see you next week.

Coming up this week, we will be talking to John Marino about his work on the ports-mgmt utility “Synth” and the cross-pollination between DragonFly and FreeBSD. That plus the latest news and your email here on This episode was brought to you by Headlines glibc and the BSDs (https://blog.des.no/2016/02/freebsd-and-cve-2015-7547/) You have likely already heard about CVE-2015-7547 (https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/cve-2015-7547) “A stack-based buffer overflow was found in the way the libresolv library performed dual A/AAAA DNS queries. A remote attacker could create a specially crafted DNS response which could cause libresolv to crash or, potentially, execute code with the permissions of the user running the library.” “Note: this issue is only exposed when libresolv is called from the nss_dns NSS service module.” More details from Google's Online Security team blog (https://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.ca/2016/02/cve-2015-7547-glibc-getaddrinfo-stack.html) “Naturally, people have started asking whether FreeBSD is affected. The FreeBSD Security Officer has not yet released an official statement, but in the meantime, here is a brief look at the issue as far as FreeBSD is concerned.” “First of all: neither FreeBSD itself nor native FreeBSD applications are affected. While the resolver in FreeBSD's libc and GNU libc share a common parentage, the bug was introduced when the latter was rewritten to send A and AAAA queries in parallel rather than sequentially when the application requests both.” The same most likely applies to the other BSDs “However, Linux applications running under emulation on a FreeBSD system use the GNU libc and are therefore vulnerable unless patched.” A patch to update emulation/linux_base-c6 has been prepared and should be committed soon Running ‘pkg audit' will list any known vulnerable packages installed on your system “The issue can be mitigated by only using resolvers you trust, and configuring them to avoid sending responses which can trigger the bug.” “If you already have your own resolvers, you can configure them to avoid sending UDP responses larger than 2048 bytes. If the response does not fit in 2048 bytes, the server will send a truncated response, and the client should retry using TCP. While a similar bug exists in the code path for TCP requests, I believe that it can only be exploited by a malicious resolver, and interposing your own resolver will protect affected Linux systems and applications.” Dag-Erling's blog post also includes instructions and configuration examples for locking down your resolver, or setting up your own resolver if you don't have one already *** OpenBSD Foundation - 2016 Fundraising Campaign (http://www.openbsdfoundation.org/campaign2016.html) The OpenBSD foundation has announced their 2016 fundraising campaign, and set the goal of raising $250k for the year. While they mention that fundraising for 2015 didn't hit 2014's blockbuster numbers, it still exceeded the goal set, with an almost equal mix of corporate and community donors. ‘Our goal for 2016 is to increase the amount of support we offer for development, without compromising our regular support for the projects. We would like to: Plan and support more developer events (hackathons), and allow for more developers to attend these events. Continue to improve the project infrastructure. Fund more dedicated developer time for targeted development of specific projects.‘ To give you an idea of how much OpenBSD technology is used around the world, they broke it down this way: If $10 were given for every installation of OpenBSD in the last year from the master site (ignoring the mirrors) we would be at our goal. If $2 were given for every download of the OpenSSH source code in the last year from the master site (ignoring the mirrors) we would be at our goal. If a penny was donated for every pf or OpenSSH installed with a mainstream operating system or phone in the last year we would be at our goal. Getting Started with ION-DTN 3.4.0 on FreeBSD (https://sgeos.github.io/freebsd/ion/dtn/2016/02/07/getting-started-with-ion-dtn-3-4-0-on-freebsd.html) “The Interplanetary Overlay Network (ION) software distribution is an implementation of Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN) architecture as described in Internet RFC 4838, suitable for use in spacecraft” This tutorial covers setting up ION 3.4.0 on FreeBSD The tutorial starts by downloading the ION software, and installing the relevant build tools The instructions allow ION to be installed system-wide, or for a specific user The each host is configured Then pings are traded between the hosts to ensure everything works Then a web page is served over the interplanetary network Sadly I don't have any hosts on other planets to test with. The tutorial also includes a troubleshooting guide *** Open Storage Issue – New BSD Mag is Out! (https://bsdmag.org/download/open_storage/) The next issue of BSDMag (The Open Storage Issue) just landed which features an interview with Matt Olander of iXsystems. During the interview, Matt talks about the culture of support for open-source down at iX, not only FreeNAS and PC-BSD, but the FreeBSD foundation, Slackware and more. He also gets to extol the virtues of the open-source development model itself, why it tends to lead to better code overall. In addition to the lead interview with Matt, this issue also features some other great interviews with Open Source storage vendors, and even some ZFS howto's about setting up your ZIL devive *** Interview - John Marino - marino@freebsd.org (mailto:marino@freebsd.org) FreeNAS with FreeBSD as its base helped save taxpayers $36,000 for a small public school district (https://www.ixsystems.com/whats-new/2016/02/11/january-missioncomplete-best-story/) News Roundup Getting Started With Tor Hidden Services on FreeBSD (https://sgeos.github.io/tor/freebsd/nc/curl/2016/02/06/getting-started-with-tor-hidden-services-on-freebsd.html) Ever wondered how to setup and use a Tor hidden service? We have a walkthrough posted over on github.io which details how to do that on a FreeBSD -CURRENT system. The basics are pretty simple, installing security/tor is the first step (although, he is using portmaster, you may wish to just ‘pkg install security/tor') The walkthrough provides an example server hosting just the date/time on port 8080, which you can use as an example and to verify it works, before serving anything real. Once a local server is ready to serve something, the Tor setup is pretty quick, basically just two lines of config in torrc: HiddenServiceDir /usr/home/tor/hidden_service/ HiddenServicePort 80 127.0.0.1:8080 After starting the service, the walkthrough will show you how to get the new hostname for this hidden service and verify its functionality. ZFS Remote Mirrors for Home Use (https://github.com/hughobrien/zfs-remote-mirror) A recently updated tutorial on remotely mirroring your ZFS files Using a spare old computer, or a SBC like a Raspberry Pi, and an (external) hard drive It covers installing and configuring FreeBSD for both sides of the remote replication The new appendix covers the creation of a Raspberry Pi image, although a prebuilt one is also provided The setup uses GELI to ensure the data is encrypted at-rest Updating and maintaining both systems is covered in detail The article is very detailed, and covers pretty much every aspect of the setup, including suggestions on where to physically locate the remote system, and configuration tips to reduce the chance that local intervention will be required Most importantly, it covers the disaster recovery steps. How to get your files back when bad things happen *** Lumina Desktop 0.8.8 Released (http://lumina-desktop.org/lumina-desktop-0-8-8-released/) PC-BSD's very own Lumina desktop has issued a new release, 0.8.8 Notable in this release is support for NetBSD out of box, improvements to the start menu, and ability to change monitor resolutions in the X configuration tool. (Also the desktop font colors look better!) 0.8.8 is now available in PC-BSD via pkg, and FreeBSD ports/pkg system as well. Lumina Desktop aims for v1.0 in July 2016 (http://fossforce.com/2016/02/lumina-desktop-getting-ready-freebsd-11-0/) We also have a blog post from Larry over at FossForce, highlighting that 1.0 of Lumina is still targeted for July(ish) *** NetBSD on Google's Compute Engine (http://www.feyrer.de/NetBSD/bx/blosxom.cgi/nb_20160213_1951.html) A NetBSD developer has gotten NetBSD running on Google Compute Engine, a service somewhat similar to Amazon's EC2, and Microsoft's Azure Support is still being worked on, but I imagine it will land in NetBSD before too long NetBSD on GCE dmesg (http://dmesgd.nycbug.org/index.cgi?action=dmesgd&do=view&id=2900) OpenBSD on GCE (http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=138610199311393&w=2) FreeBSD on GCE (https://github.com/swills/FreeBSD-gcloud) *** BeastieBits htop 2.0 released - an interactive process viewer for Unix (including FreeBSD and OpenBSD) (http://hisham.hm/htop/) Full set of binary packages for 7.0 released for ARM v6 and v7 (hf) (http://mail-index.netbsd.org/port-arm/2016/01/31/msg003648.html) DragonFly 4.4.2 released (https://www.dragonflybsd.org/release44/) LibertyBSD 5.8 has been released (http://libertybsd.net/) Broadwell systems may want to take advantage of the patch by Imre Vadasz (http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/commits/2016-January/459239.html) Finding the hard-to-spot bugs in FreeBSD (http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0377/) Feedback/Questions Johnny - The Daily Show (http://slexy.org/view/s21dwzoXRn) Randy - Let it BSD (http://slexy.org/view/s2Hmmu5pUr) Miguel - NullFS (http://slexy.org/view/s20tOLsHHj) Jaek - PC-BSD Hardware (http://slexy.org/view/s2N9wQ1n5X) ***

This time on the show, we'll be talking with George Neville-Neil about the brand new FreeBSD Journal and what it's all about. After that, we've got a tutorial on how to track the -stable and -current branches of OpenBSD. Answers to all your BSD questions and the latest headlines, only on BSD Now - the place to B.. SD. This episode was brought to you by Headlines FreeBSD quarterly status report (https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2014-January/077085.html) Gabor Pali sent out the October-December 2013 status report to get everyone up to date on what's going on The report contains 37 entries and is very very long... various reports from all the different teams under the FreeBSD umbrella, probably too many to even list in the show notes Lots of work going on in the ARM world, EC2/Xen and Google Compute Engine are also improving Secure boot support hopefully coming by mid-year (www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/62855-freebsd-to-support-secure-boot-by-mid-year) There's quite a bit going on in the FreeBSD world, many projects happening at the same time *** n2k14 OpenBSD Hackathon Report (http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20140124142027) Recently, OpenBSD held one of their hackathons (http://www.openbsd.org/hackathons.html) in New Zealand 15 developers gathered there to sit in a room and write code for a few days Philip Guenther brings back a nice report of the event If you've been watching the -current CVS logs, you've seen the flood of commits just from this event alone Fixes with threading, Linux compat, ACPI, and various other things - some will make it into 5.5 and others need more testing Another report from Theo (http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20140127083112) details his work Updates to the random subsystem, some work-in-progress pf fixes, suspend/resume fixes and more signing stuff *** Four new NetBSD releases (https://blog.netbsd.org/tnf/entry/netbsd_6_1_3_netbsd) NetBSD released versions 6.1.3, 6.0.4, 5.2.2 and 5.1.4 These updates include lots of bug fixes and some security updates, not focused on new features You can upgrade depending on what branch you're currently on Confused about the different branches? See this graph. (https://www.netbsd.org/releases/release-map.html#graph1) *** The future of open source ZFS development (http://sites.ieee.org/scv-cs/archives/openzfs-future-open-source-zfs-development) On February 11, 2014, Matt Ahrens will be giving a presentation about ZFS The talk will be about the future of ZFS and the open source development since Oracle closed the code It's in San Jose, California - go if you can! *** Interview - George Neville-Neil - gnn@freebsd.org (mailto:gnn@freebsd.org) / @gvnn3 (https://twitter.com/gvnn3) The FreeBSD Journal (http://freebsdjournal.com/) Tutorial Tracking -STABLE and -CURRENT (OpenBSD) (http://www.bsdnow.tv/tutorials/stable-current-obsd) News Roundup pfSense news and 2.1.1 snapshots (https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/2.1.1_New_Features_and_Changes) pfSense has some snapshots available for the upcoming 2.1.1 release They include FreeBSD security fixes as well as some other updates There are recordings posted (https://blog.pfsense.org/?p=1198) of some of the previous hangouts Unfortunately they're only for subscribers, so you'll have to wait until next month when we have Chris on the show to talk about pfSense! *** FreeBSD on Google Compute Engine (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/gce-discussion/YWoa3Aa_49U/FYAg9oiRlLUJ) Recently we mentioned some posts about getting OpenBSD to run on GCE, here's the FreeBSD version Nice big fat warning: "The team has put together a best-effort posting that will get most, if not all, of you up and running. That being said, we need to remind you that FreeBSD is being supported on Google Compute Engine by the community. The instructions are being provided as-is and without warranty." Their instructions are a little too Linuxy (assuming wget, etc.) for our taste, someone should probably get it updated! Other than that it's a pretty good set of instructions on how to get up and running *** Dragonfly ACPI update (http://www.shiningsilence.com/dbsdlog/2014/01/22/13225.html) Sascha Wildner committed some new ACPI code (http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/commits/2014-January/199071.html) There's also a "heads up" to update your BIOS (http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/2014-January/090504.html) if you experience problems Check the mailing list post for all the details *** PCBSD weekly digest (http://blog.pcbsd.org/2014/01/pc-bsd-weekly-feature-digest-6/) 10.0-RC4 users need to upgrade all their packages for 10.0-RC5 PBIs needed to be rebuilt.. actually everything did Help test GNOME 3 so we can get it in the official ports tree By the way, I think Kris has an announcement - PCBSD 10.0 is out! *** Feedback/Questions Tony writes in (http://slexy.org/view/s21ZlfOdTt) Jeff writes in (http://slexy.org/view/s2BFZ68Na5) Remy writes in (http://slexy.org/view/s20epArsQI) Nils writes in (http://slexy.org/view/s213CoNvLt) Solomon writes in (http://slexy.org/view/s21XWnThNS) ***

We've got some special treats for you this week on the show. It's the long-awaited "installfest" segment, where we go through the installer of each of the different BSDs. Of course we also have your feedback and the latest news as well... and... we even have our very first viewer contest! There's a lot to get to today on BSD Now - the place to B.. SD. This episode was brought to you by Headlines FreeBSD's new testing infrastructure (https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/2013-December/044009.html) A new test suite was added to FreeBSD, with 3 powerful machines available Both -CURRENT and stable/10 have got the test suite build infrastructure in place Designed to help developers test and improve major scalability across huge amounts of CPUs and RAM More details available here (http://julipedia.meroh.net/2013/12/introducing-freebsd-test-suite.html) Could the iXsystems monster server be involved...? *** OpenBSD gets signify (http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=138845902916897&w=2) At long last, OpenBSD gets support for signed releases! For "the world's most secure OS" it was very easy to MITM kernel patches, updates, installer isos, everything A commit to the -current tree reveals a new "signify" tool is currently being kicked around More details in a blog post (http://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/signify) from the guy who committed it Quote: "yeah, briefly, the plan is to sign sets and packages. that's still work in progress." *** Faces of FreeBSD (http://freebsdfoundation.blogspot.ca/2013/12/faces-of-freebsd-isabell-long.html) This time they interview Isabell Long She's a volunteer staff member on the freenode IRC network In 2011, she participated in the Google Code-In contest and became involved with documentation "The new committer mentoring process proved very useful and that, plus the accepting community of FreeBSD, are reasons why I stay involved." *** pkgsrc-2013Q4 branched (http://mail-index.netbsd.org/pkgsrc-users/2013/12/31/msg019107.html) The quarterly pkgsrc branch from NetBSD is out 13472 total packages for NetBSD-current/amd64 + 13049 binary packages built with clang! Lots of numbers and stats in the announcement pkgsrc works on quite a few different OSes, not just NetBSD See our interview (http://www.bsdnow.tv/episodes/2013_11_20-collecting_shells) with Amitai Schlair for a bit about pkgsrc *** OpenBSD on Google's Compute Engine (http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=138610199311393&w=2) Google Compute Engine is a "cloud computing" platform similar to EC2 Unfortunately, they only offer poor choices for the OS (Debian and CentOS) Recently it's been announced that there is a custom OS option It's using a WIP virtio-scsi driver, lots of things still need more work Lots of technical and networking details about the struggles to get OpenBSD working on it *** The Installfest We'll be showing you the installer of each of the main BSDs. As of the date this episode airs, we're using: FreeBSD 10.0 OpenBSD 5.4 NetBSD 6.1.2 DragonflyBSD 3.6 PCBSD 10.0 *** News Roundup Building an OpenBSD wireless access point (http://ctors.net/2013/12/30/openbsd_wireless_access_point) A neat write up we found around the internet about making an OpenBSD wifi router Goes through the process of PXE booting, installing base, using a serial console, setting up networking and wireless Even includes a puffy sticker on the Soekris box at the end, how cute *** FreeBSD 4.X jails on 10.0 (http://blather.michaelwlucas.com/archives/1919) Blog entry from our buddy Michael Lucas (http://www.bsdnow.tv/episodes/2013_11_06-year_of_the_bsd_desktop) For whatever reason (an "in-house application"), he needed to run a FreeBSD 4 jail in FreeBSD 10 Talks about the options he had: porting software, virtualizing, dealing with slow old hardware He goes through the whole process of making an ancient jail It's "an acceptable trade-off, if it means I don't have to touch actual PHP code." *** Unscrewed: a story about OpenBSD (http://www.skeptech.org/blog/2013/01/13/unscrewed-a-story-about-openbsd/) Pretty long blog post about how a network admin used OpenBSD to save the day To set the tone, "It was 5am, and the network was down" Great war story about replacing expensive routers and networking equipment with cheaper hardware and BSD Mentions a lot of the built in tools and how OpenBSD is great for routers and high security applications *** PCBSD weekly digest (http://blog.pcbsd.org/2014/01/pc-bsd-weekly-feature-digest-2/) 10.0-RC3 is out and ready to be tested New detection of ATI Hybrid Graphics, they're working on nVidia next Re-classifying Linux jails as unsupported / experimental *** Feedback/Questions Daniel writes in (http://slexy.org/view/s2uns1hMml) Erik writes in (http://slexy.org/view/s2MeJNCCiu) SW writes in (http://slexy.org/view/s21fBXkP2K) [Bostjan writes in[(http://slexy.org/view/s20N9bfkum) Samuel writes in (http://slexy.org/view/s20FU9wUO5) ***