Quote from an unnamed article I just saw: one look at the Cloud Native Landscape Project’s product taxonomy shows a mishmash of commercial products and open source projects that are sure to strike

The interactive version we're building will support filtering by open source or not, which will provide that functionality. On the 2-D version, I think there's value in seeing that there are open

Would it be heretical to remove products altogether and just focus on projects? Or have a separate products landscape using the same rules. Best Duncan -- Duncan Johnston-Watt Founder & Chief

I think that approach is the only reasonable one (that doesn't require the voting TOC members to build the landscape)

Per the last TOC meeting, we're building out the storage piece of this landscape in the Storage WG. The one dilemma I've been noodling on is how to manage the fact that there is an incentive for every

Chip, I've heard this criticism, which is why we added this explanation at the bottom: It's certainly possible that developers or end users in investigating cloud native could look at the diagram, see

The original intent was to provide press and analysts a tool to present the space, and for supporting various kinds of marketing.

Fully respecting all of the work that went into this diagram, from the taxonomy discussions, to the categorization efforts and the design work, I have a question as a list lurker: What was / is the

We have version 0.9.6 in the Cloud Native Infrastructure book. The book goes into production today but I'm pretty sure we can swap out the diagram when a new version is available so long as it's

We have an interactive version under development that will allow better zooming and filtering, as well as include dynamic info like GitHub stars and funding from Crunchbase. -- Dan Kohn

We were making a distinction between software for provisioning a public (or private cloud) and providers offering public clouds.

That's a symptom that this is becoming too much of an eye chart to be useful. I suggest having one diagram that shows the areas and current CNCF projects, and one diagram per area/layer/column with

No, service providers are documented elsewhere.

Good catch, Camille. Yeah, there are a bunch of changes in this version that don't make sense. For example, why is Openstack at a layer above public cloud?

Not every application in the universe should be in this map, whether they are cloud-native or not. The map is already too busy. I'd prefer to kick out a number of the projects that are currently in

AIs will create their own maps that humans cannot understand :-P

I'm sorry to hear that the changes are many and complex. Speaking for the TOC, the most important thing is to preserve the layering and buckets within each layer. Because we voted on that.

I also assume we will soon see a slew of “cloud-native” AI/ML start-ups, where would they sit? BTW interesting to learn DB2 & Oracle are “cloud-native” now, maybe we should add Lotus

Alexis, there are hundreds of positive changes in the latest version. We can do an 0.9.7 quickly, though. -- Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation

maybe we should have a whole 'nother 'scape for data