|
Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape
alexis richardson
We could show layers and buckets and existing cncf projects Out of scope buckets could be greyed out. On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, 12:39 Camille Fournier via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape
Camille Fournier
Fwiw I actually find the product examples useful for being specific about the various boxes. I think it's a hard balance to strike : giving useful concrete examples without trying to be complete will violate our "no kingmaking" rule, but with no examples it's too vague. On Sep 12, 2017 11:36 PM, "Dan Kohn via cncf-toc" <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape
Yaron Haviv <yaronh@...>
While it made a lot of progress, I think this diagram still mainly serves marketing i.e. “We are cloud-native”
We didn’t tackle the loaded question of what cloud-native is, but IMO it’s not “my product works with Docker” or “runs on AWS” (see the link below) which is the case for some of the products in this diagram. Its maybe ok if its goal is to show how big is the tent, not sure it serves users.
Can read my views on that which try to provoke some thoughts/discussion: Using Containers As Mini-VMs is NOT Cloud-Native!
Yaron
From: cncf-toc-bounces@... [mailto:cncf-toc-bounces@...]
On Behalf Of Dan Kohn via cncf-toc
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 6:35 AM To: Brian Grant <briangrant@...> Cc: Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] New version of Cloud Native Landscape
The article is: https://diginomica.com/2017/09/11/docker-loses-first-mover-advantage-kubernetes/
I'm certainly aware of the complexity argument. But when weighed against the ability to shape the discussion around the projects and products in the cloud native ecosystem, I strongly believe that the positives outweigh the negatives.
-- Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@...> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/>
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:26 PM, Brian Grant <briangrant@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Envoy project proposal (incubation)
Jonathan Boulle <jonathan.boulle@...>
+1 On 11 September 2017 at 18:30, Dustin Kirkland via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote: +1, non-binding. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. |
|
|
|
Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
The article is: https://diginomica.com/ I'm certainly aware of the complexity argument. But when weighed against the ability to shape the discussion around the projects and products in the cloud native ecosystem, I strongly believe that the positives outweigh the negatives. On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:26 PM, Brian Grant <briangrant@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape
Brian Grant
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 terror in any IT systems designer and cloud developer trying to assemble the tools necessary to build and deploy cloud native applications On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
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 source and proprietary offerings in most categories. On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Duncan Johnston Watt via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape
Duncan Johnston Watt <duncan.johnstonwatt@...>
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 On 12 September 2017 at 19:19, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
--
Duncan Johnston-Watt Founder & Chief Executive Officer Phone: +44 777 190 2653 | Skype: duncan_johnstonwatt Twitter: @duncanjw | LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/duncanjohnstonwatt
Stay up to date with everything Cloudsoft:
|
|
|
|
Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape
alexis richardson
I think that approach is the only reasonable one (that doesn't require the voting TOC members to build the landscape) On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Stephen Watt via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape
Stephen Watt
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 Product Manager from every Storage Company to make a case to have their products listed in every category, whether they really fit the category or not. I think this is kind of a shared issue across the entire landscape. One idea might be to increase the level of effort to petition for inclusion. One approach might be that workgroups spend some time articulating the properties for each category (which establishes and clearly communicates what the bar is for inclusion) and once that is completed, open source projects and commercial solutions would then be required to get a slot on the relevant WG calendar to demo how their product meets the requirements for the category. This will ensure that anyone requesting to be added to a category in the landscape has some skin in the game, which should reduce the amount of time we all spend dealing with spurious requests for addition. Regards Steve Watt On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Chip, I've heard this criticism, which is why we added this explanation at the bottom: This landscape is intended as a map through the previously uncharted terrain of cloud native technologies. There are many routes to deploying a cloud native application, with CNCF Projects representing a particularly well-traveled path. It's certainly possible that developers or end users in investigating cloud native could look at the diagram, see that there are 300 options, and decide to just avoid the space entirely and stick with VMs. However, I do not think that is likely. Instead, I believe that it is effectively sending the message that using CNCF projects is not the only path to cloud native, but it is a good one. -- Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation <https://cncf.io/> tel:+1-415-233-1000 On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Chip Childers <cchilders@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape
alexis richardson
The original intent was to provide press and analysts a tool to present the space, and for supporting various kinds of marketing. On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, 18:18 Chip Childers via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape
Chip Childers <cchilders@...>
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 intent of the diagram, and who is the intended "user"? Some feedback I've been hearing from end users / customers is that it's perhaps even more confusing than not having it. It's certainly good to expose the choices that individuals and organization can make, but it's overwhelming to those I've spoken with. It pretty directly exposes them to the paradox of choice that they face. If end users / customers are not the intended audience, that would be good to make more clear. If they are, you might want to solicit some feedback from people outside the "bubble" to get their take. Anyway... hope that was useful feedback... back to lurking for me. -chip On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:43 AM Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
-- Chip Childers CTO, Cloud Foundry Foundation 1.267.250.0815 |
|
|
|
Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape
Justin Garrison <justinleegarrison@...>
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 available before the end of October. On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
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. On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Brian Grant <briangrant@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
We were making a distinction between software for provisioning a public (or private cloud) and providers offering public clouds. |
|
|
|
Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape
Brian Grant
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 other projects. On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Dan Kohn via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape
Brian Grant
No, service providers are documented elsewhere. On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Pini Reznik via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape
Brian Grant
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? On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 4:51 AM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: New version of Cloud Native Landscape
Brian Grant
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 4:51 AM, Yaron Haviv via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
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 the app definition layer and just enumerate whole areas that are out of scope.
|
|
|
