Date   

Re: netdata shitshow

Roger Klorese
 

+1 non-binding. Our company has deployed harbor in the prod environment, the number of kubernetes nodes is 200+, the number of applications is 400+, the number of the image is 4000+, and the cluster size is growing rapidly.
github.com



Roger B.A. Klorese
Senior Product Manager
SUSE
705 5th Ave S, Suite 1000
Seattle WA 98104
(P)+1 206.217.7432
(M)+1 425.444.5493
roger.klorese@...
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/RogerKlorese
GPG Key: D567 F186 A6AE D244 067E  95E4 E67D 019F 0670 D9CC


From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Mark Peek via Lists.Cncf.Io <markpeek=vmware.com@...>
Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 12:48 PM
To: Matt Farina; Roger Klorese
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow
 

Perhaps you’re thinking further kubernetes integrations which was in the slide deck for the TOC presentation. That preso was on 2018-06-19 while the links I provided for an early tagged release showing containerized builds is from 2016-12-06.

 

Mark

 

From: Roger Klorese <roger.klorese@...>
Date: Friday, June 7, 2019 at 12:37 PM
To: Matt Farina <matt@...>, Mark Peek <markpeek@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow

 

Wasn't Harbor originally delivered ONLY as a virtual appliance, with the containers coming later? The discussion of whether to accept it as a CNCF project received pushback at the time based specifically on that fact.

 

Roger B.A. Klorese
Senior Product Manager
SUSE
705 5th Ave S, Suite 1000
Seattle WA 98104
(P)+1 206.217.7432
(M)+1 425.444.5493
roger.klorese@...
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/RogerKlorese
GPG Key: D567 F186 A6AE D244 067E  95E4 E67D 019F 0670 D9CC


From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Mark Peek via Lists.Cncf.Io <markpeek=vmware.com@...>
Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 12:18 PM
To: Matt Farina; Roger Klorese
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow

 

Roger,

I get your point but disagree with your example.

 

Harbor is delivered as a set of containers and I would consider it cloud native. For convenience it is also delivered as a virtual appliance.

 

Looking back to version 0.5.0 (Dec 6, 2016) we see it uses docker/docker-compose for running on Linux:

https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/tree/release-0.5.0

https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/releases/tag/0.5.0

 

 

Mark

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "Roger Klorese via Lists.Cncf.Io" <roger.klorese=suse.com@...>
Reply-To: "roger.klorese@..." <roger.klorese@...>
Date: Friday, June 7, 2019 at 11:10 AM
To: Matt Farina <matt@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow

 

If I recall correctly, for instance, when Harbor was added, it was a valuable component for cloud-native deployment - but it was not itself cloud-native, since it was delivered as a virtual appliance...

Roger B.A. Klorese
Senior Product Manager
SUSE
705 5th Ave SSuite 1000
Seattle WA 98104

(P)+1 206.217.7432
(M)+1 425.444.5493
roger.klorese@...
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/RogerKlorese
GPG Key: D567 F186 A6AE D244 067E  95E4 E67D 019F 0670 D9CC


On Jun 7, 2019, at 10:59 AM, Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

Alexis,

 

Maybe you can help me with this. The CNCF has a Cloud Native definition. A lot of things fit this bill in one way, shape, or form. Far more than are in the landscape. What is missing that the landscape should account for and why?

 

If something stricter is to be used it needs to be clearly documented and consistently applied. This allows for things to be fair and to keep it outside the realm of tribal knowledge.

 

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com

 

 

 

On Jun 7, 2019, at 1:35 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

 

Matt

OK, but:

We are doing a disservice to new users by publishing a "cloud native"
landscape, that contains non-cloud-native projects.  If we don't have
an opinion about what is cloud native and what is not, then what is
our purpose?

Other than I fully agree with you.

a



On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 6:01 PM Matthew Farina <matt@...> wrote:


When we first made the landscape, it (1) had a particular structure
and (2) attempted to show what projects are cloud native and where
they live in that structure.

Now, it has everything in it.  So it is meaningless.


I have to respectfully disagree that it’s meaningless.

Consider the case where someone is new to the space or a category in it. Where does one start to find the options in the space? Search engines are pretty limiting. Especially since this packed space has more than 10 options in each area.

New people to the space should be a high priority because there are more people we would like to come into the space than are already here today. I find the landscape helps them discover what’s in the space. It’s an onboarding tool. We need more of those.

Of course there are questions about netdata. Is netdata a competitor to Prometheus? As an outside observer, it looks like it can monitory lots of things including containers. With Prometheus I can monitory containers, microservices, and even VMs. Again, this is just me as an external observer.

Should people be able to discover the monitoring tools that can monitor containers in the landscape? That’s the question I would look at. Or, is there some other criteria? If so, it would be worth sharing so it’s not tribal knowledge locked in the minds of a few people.

--
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com

 


Re: netdata shitshow

Mark Peek
 

Perhaps you’re thinking further kubernetes integrations which was in the slide deck for the TOC presentation. That preso was on 2018-06-19 while the links I provided for an early tagged release showing containerized builds is from 2016-12-06.

 

Mark

 

From: Roger Klorese <roger.klorese@...>
Date: Friday, June 7, 2019 at 12:37 PM
To: Matt Farina <matt@...>, Mark Peek <markpeek@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow

 

Wasn't Harbor originally delivered ONLY as a virtual appliance, with the containers coming later? The discussion of whether to accept it as a CNCF project received pushback at the time based specifically on that fact.

 

Roger B.A. Klorese
Senior Product Manager
SUSE
705 5th Ave S, Suite 1000
Seattle WA 98104
(P)+1 206.217.7432
(M)+1 425.444.5493
roger.klorese@...
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/RogerKlorese
GPG Key: D567 F186 A6AE D244 067E  95E4 E67D 019F 0670 D9CC


From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Mark Peek via Lists.Cncf.Io <markpeek=vmware.com@...>
Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 12:18 PM
To: Matt Farina; Roger Klorese
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow

 

Roger,

I get your point but disagree with your example.

 

Harbor is delivered as a set of containers and I would consider it cloud native. For convenience it is also delivered as a virtual appliance.

 

Looking back to version 0.5.0 (Dec 6, 2016) we see it uses docker/docker-compose for running on Linux:

https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/tree/release-0.5.0

https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/releases/tag/0.5.0

 

 

Mark

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "Roger Klorese via Lists.Cncf.Io" <roger.klorese=suse.com@...>
Reply-To: "roger.klorese@..." <roger.klorese@...>
Date: Friday, June 7, 2019 at 11:10 AM
To: Matt Farina <matt@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow

 

If I recall correctly, for instance, when Harbor was added, it was a valuable component for cloud-native deployment - but it was not itself cloud-native, since it was delivered as a virtual appliance...

Roger B.A. Klorese
Senior Product Manager
SUSE
705 5th Ave SSuite 1000
Seattle WA 98104

(P)+1 206.217.7432
(M)+1 425.444.5493
roger.klorese@...
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/RogerKlorese
GPG Key: D567 F186 A6AE D244 067E  95E4 E67D 019F 0670 D9CC


On Jun 7, 2019, at 10:59 AM, Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

Alexis,

 

Maybe you can help me with this. The CNCF has a Cloud Native definition. A lot of things fit this bill in one way, shape, or form. Far more than are in the landscape. What is missing that the landscape should account for and why?

 

If something stricter is to be used it needs to be clearly documented and consistently applied. This allows for things to be fair and to keep it outside the realm of tribal knowledge.

 

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com

 

 

 

On Jun 7, 2019, at 1:35 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

 

Matt

OK, but:

We are doing a disservice to new users by publishing a "cloud native"
landscape, that contains non-cloud-native projects.  If we don't have
an opinion about what is cloud native and what is not, then what is
our purpose?

Other than I fully agree with you.

a



On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 6:01 PM Matthew Farina <matt@...> wrote:


When we first made the landscape, it (1) had a particular structure
and (2) attempted to show what projects are cloud native and where
they live in that structure.

Now, it has everything in it.  So it is meaningless.


I have to respectfully disagree that it’s meaningless.

Consider the case where someone is new to the space or a category in it. Where does one start to find the options in the space? Search engines are pretty limiting. Especially since this packed space has more than 10 options in each area.

New people to the space should be a high priority because there are more people we would like to come into the space than are already here today. I find the landscape helps them discover what’s in the space. It’s an onboarding tool. We need more of those.

Of course there are questions about netdata. Is netdata a competitor to Prometheus? As an outside observer, it looks like it can monitory lots of things including containers. With Prometheus I can monitory containers, microservices, and even VMs. Again, this is just me as an external observer.

Should people be able to discover the monitoring tools that can monitor containers in the landscape? That’s the question I would look at. Or, is there some other criteria? If so, it would be worth sharing so it’s not tribal knowledge locked in the minds of a few people.

--
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com

 


Re: netdata shitshow

Roger Klorese
 

Wasn't Harbor originally delivered ONLY as a virtual appliance, with the containers coming later? The discussion of whether to accept it as a CNCF project received pushback at the time based specifically on that fact.

Roger B.A. Klorese
Senior Product Manager
SUSE
705 5th Ave S, Suite 1000
Seattle WA 98104
(P)+1 206.217.7432
(M)+1 425.444.5493
roger.klorese@...
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/RogerKlorese
GPG Key: D567 F186 A6AE D244 067E  95E4 E67D 019F 0670 D9CC


From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Mark Peek via Lists.Cncf.Io <markpeek=vmware.com@...>
Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 12:18 PM
To: Matt Farina; Roger Klorese
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow
 

Roger,

I get your point but disagree with your example.

 

Harbor is delivered as a set of containers and I would consider it cloud native. For convenience it is also delivered as a virtual appliance.

 

Looking back to version 0.5.0 (Dec 6, 2016) we see it uses docker/docker-compose for running on Linux:

https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/tree/release-0.5.0

https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/releases/tag/0.5.0

 

 

Mark

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "Roger Klorese via Lists.Cncf.Io" <roger.klorese=suse.com@...>
Reply-To: "roger.klorese@..." <roger.klorese@...>
Date: Friday, June 7, 2019 at 11:10 AM
To: Matt Farina <matt@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow

 

If I recall correctly, for instance, when Harbor was added, it was a valuable component for cloud-native deployment - but it was not itself cloud-native, since it was delivered as a virtual appliance...

Roger B.A. Klorese
Senior Product Manager
SUSE
705 5th Ave SSuite 1000
Seattle WA 98104

(P)+1 206.217.7432
(M)+1 425.444.5493
roger.klorese@...
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/RogerKlorese
GPG Key: D567 F186 A6AE D244 067E  95E4 E67D 019F 0670 D9CC


On Jun 7, 2019, at 10:59 AM, Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

Alexis,

 

Maybe you can help me with this. The CNCF has a Cloud Native definition. A lot of things fit this bill in one way, shape, or form. Far more than are in the landscape. What is missing that the landscape should account for and why?

 

If something stricter is to be used it needs to be clearly documented and consistently applied. This allows for things to be fair and to keep it outside the realm of tribal knowledge.

 

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com

 

 



On Jun 7, 2019, at 1:35 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

 

Matt

OK, but:

We are doing a disservice to new users by publishing a "cloud native"
landscape, that contains non-cloud-native projects.  If we don't have
an opinion about what is cloud native and what is not, then what is
our purpose?

Other than I fully agree with you.

a



On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 6:01 PM Matthew Farina <matt@...> wrote:


When we first made the landscape, it (1) had a particular structure
and (2) attempted to show what projects are cloud native and where
they live in that structure.

Now, it has everything in it.  So it is meaningless.


I have to respectfully disagree that it’s meaningless.

Consider the case where someone is new to the space or a category in it. Where does one start to find the options in the space? Search engines are pretty limiting. Especially since this packed space has more than 10 options in each area.

New people to the space should be a high priority because there are more people we would like to come into the space than are already here today. I find the landscape helps them discover what’s in the space. It’s an onboarding tool. We need more of those.

Of course there are questions about netdata. Is netdata a competitor to Prometheus? As an outside observer, it looks like it can monitory lots of things including containers. With Prometheus I can monitory containers, microservices, and even VMs. Again, this is just me as an external observer.

Should people be able to discover the monitoring tools that can monitor containers in the landscape? That’s the question I would look at. Or, is there some other criteria? If so, it would be worth sharing so it’s not tribal knowledge locked in the minds of a few people.

--
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com

 


Re: netdata shitshow

alexis richardson
 

Costa

The decision was unanimous, in that no TOC member wished to sponsor
Netdata. Had a sponsor stepped forward, Netdata would have been
invited to initiate the DD process for incubation, with Github issue
creation etc. Note that the project was too mature for sandbox.
After DD there would have been a vote. If this was not communicated
to you, then I apologise.

alexis

On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 7:01 PM <costa+cncf@netdata.cloud> wrote:

Alexis, thank you for the information.

So, you say that TOC members discussed about Netdata and decided it is not cloud native and should not be invited to CNCF.

Are there any meeting minutes about this?
Which TOC members were present?
Was this decision unanimous?
Is the standard procedure to silently make such decisions without letting the founders know and giving them the option to provide additional information that may help in the decision?

To my understanding Netdata is the definition of "Cloud Native". It is the only monitoring solution that does not require any centralization of metrics, provides 1s granularity as standard, supports unlimited metrics per node, provides meaningful presentation and visualization for all metrics, comes pre-configured with alarms that are attached automatically to all metrics and can be used immediately after installation with zero configuration on most setups. So, I am very curious to see a list of Cloud Native criteria Netdata did not meet.

Thank you!


Re: netdata shitshow

alexis richardson
 

+1, the TOC felt the same way when the voting happened.

On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 8:18 PM Mark Peek via Lists.Cncf.Io
<markpeek=vmware.com@lists.cncf.io> wrote:

Roger,

I get your point but disagree with your example.



Harbor is delivered as a set of containers and I would consider it cloud native. For convenience it is also delivered as a virtual appliance.



Looking back to version 0.5.0 (Dec 6, 2016) we see it uses docker/docker-compose for running on Linux:

https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/tree/release-0.5.0

https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/releases/tag/0.5.0





Mark



From: <cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io> on behalf of "Roger Klorese via Lists.Cncf.Io" <roger.klorese=suse.com@lists.cncf.io>
Reply-To: "roger.klorese@suse.com" <roger.klorese@suse.com>
Date: Friday, June 7, 2019 at 11:10 AM
To: Matt Farina <matt@mattfarina.com>
Cc: "cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io" <cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow



If I recall correctly, for instance, when Harbor was added, it was a valuable component for cloud-native deployment - but it was not itself cloud-native, since it was delivered as a virtual appliance...

Roger B.A. Klorese
Senior Product Manager
SUSE
705 5th Ave S, Suite 1000
Seattle WA 98104
(P)+1 206.217.7432
(M)+1 425.444.5493
roger.klorese@suse.com
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/RogerKlorese
GPG Key: D567 F186 A6AE D244 067E 95E4 E67D 019F 0670 D9CC


On Jun 7, 2019, at 10:59 AM, Matt Farina <matt@mattfarina.com> wrote:

Alexis,



Maybe you can help me with this. The CNCF has a Cloud Native definition. A lot of things fit this bill in one way, shape, or form. Far more than are in the landscape. What is missing that the landscape should account for and why?



If something stricter is to be used it needs to be clearly documented and consistently applied. This allows for things to be fair and to keep it outside the realm of tribal knowledge.



--
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com







On Jun 7, 2019, at 1:35 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@weave.works> wrote:



Matt

OK, but:

We are doing a disservice to new users by publishing a "cloud native"
landscape, that contains non-cloud-native projects. If we don't have
an opinion about what is cloud native and what is not, then what is
our purpose?

Other than I fully agree with you.

a



On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 6:01 PM Matthew Farina <matt@mattfarina.com> wrote:


When we first made the landscape, it (1) had a particular structure
and (2) attempted to show what projects are cloud native and where
they live in that structure.

Now, it has everything in it. So it is meaningless.


I have to respectfully disagree that it’s meaningless.

Consider the case where someone is new to the space or a category in it. Where does one start to find the options in the space? Search engines are pretty limiting. Especially since this packed space has more than 10 options in each area.

New people to the space should be a high priority because there are more people we would like to come into the space than are already here today. I find the landscape helps them discover what’s in the space. It’s an onboarding tool. We need more of those.

Of course there are questions about netdata. Is netdata a competitor to Prometheus? As an outside observer, it looks like it can monitory lots of things including containers. With Prometheus I can monitory containers, microservices, and even VMs. Again, this is just me as an external observer.

Should people be able to discover the monitoring tools that can monitor containers in the landscape? That’s the question I would look at. Or, is there some other criteria? If so, it would be worth sharing so it’s not tribal knowledge locked in the minds of a few people.

--
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com




Re: netdata shitshow

alexis richardson
 

Matt,

Yes, indeed, we do have the Definition. The TOC worked on this along
with the layered stack (architecture) and landscape (which fits into
the stack). You are 100% right that there should be greater clarity
and consistency. Without this we get confusion and worse. So, the
CNCF TOC should regularly review *all* core technical content with
those criteria in mind. There was an Architecture WG for this, which
could be revived in some form. I think this could help in lots of
ways, including the arduous job of marketing CNCF.

alexis

On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 6:59 PM Matthew Farina <matt@mattfarina.com> wrote:

Alexis,

Maybe you can help me with this. The CNCF has a Cloud Native definition. A lot of things fit this bill in one way, shape, or form. Far more than are in the landscape. What is missing that the landscape should account for and why?

If something stricter is to be used it needs to be clearly documented and consistently applied. This allows for things to be fair and to keep it outside the realm of tribal knowledge.

--
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com



On Jun 7, 2019, at 1:35 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@weave.works> wrote:

Matt

OK, but:

We are doing a disservice to new users by publishing a "cloud native"
landscape, that contains non-cloud-native projects. If we don't have
an opinion about what is cloud native and what is not, then what is
our purpose?

Other than I fully agree with you.

a



On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 6:01 PM Matthew Farina <matt@mattfarina.com> wrote:


When we first made the landscape, it (1) had a particular structure
and (2) attempted to show what projects are cloud native and where
they live in that structure.

Now, it has everything in it. So it is meaningless.


I have to respectfully disagree that it’s meaningless.

Consider the case where someone is new to the space or a category in it. Where does one start to find the options in the space? Search engines are pretty limiting. Especially since this packed space has more than 10 options in each area.

New people to the space should be a high priority because there are more people we would like to come into the space than are already here today. I find the landscape helps them discover what’s in the space. It’s an onboarding tool. We need more of those.

Of course there are questions about netdata. Is netdata a competitor to Prometheus? As an outside observer, it looks like it can monitory lots of things including containers. With Prometheus I can monitory containers, microservices, and even VMs. Again, this is just me as an external observer.

Should people be able to discover the monitoring tools that can monitor containers in the landscape? That’s the question I would look at. Or, is there some other criteria? If so, it would be worth sharing so it’s not tribal knowledge locked in the minds of a few people.

--
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com


Re: netdata shitshow

Mark Peek
 

Roger,

I get your point but disagree with your example.

 

Harbor is delivered as a set of containers and I would consider it cloud native. For convenience it is also delivered as a virtual appliance.

 

Looking back to version 0.5.0 (Dec 6, 2016) we see it uses docker/docker-compose for running on Linux:

https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/tree/release-0.5.0

https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/releases/tag/0.5.0

 

 

Mark

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "Roger Klorese via Lists.Cncf.Io" <roger.klorese=suse.com@...>
Reply-To: "roger.klorese@..." <roger.klorese@...>
Date: Friday, June 7, 2019 at 11:10 AM
To: Matt Farina <matt@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow

 

If I recall correctly, for instance, when Harbor was added, it was a valuable component for cloud-native deployment - but it was not itself cloud-native, since it was delivered as a virtual appliance...

Roger B.A. Klorese
Senior Product Manager
SUSE
705 5th Ave SSuite 1000
Seattle WA 98104

(P)+1 206.217.7432
(M)+1 425.444.5493
roger.klorese@...
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/RogerKlorese
GPG Key: D567 F186 A6AE D244 067E  95E4 E67D 019F 0670 D9CC


On Jun 7, 2019, at 10:59 AM, Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

Alexis,

 

Maybe you can help me with this. The CNCF has a Cloud Native definition. A lot of things fit this bill in one way, shape, or form. Far more than are in the landscape. What is missing that the landscape should account for and why?

 

If something stricter is to be used it needs to be clearly documented and consistently applied. This allows for things to be fair and to keep it outside the realm of tribal knowledge.

 

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com

 

 



On Jun 7, 2019, at 1:35 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

 

Matt

OK, but:

We are doing a disservice to new users by publishing a "cloud native"
landscape, that contains non-cloud-native projects.  If we don't have
an opinion about what is cloud native and what is not, then what is
our purpose?

Other than I fully agree with you.

a



On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 6:01 PM Matthew Farina <matt@...> wrote:


When we first made the landscape, it (1) had a particular structure
and (2) attempted to show what projects are cloud native and where
they live in that structure.

Now, it has everything in it.  So it is meaningless.


I have to respectfully disagree that it’s meaningless.

Consider the case where someone is new to the space or a category in it. Where does one start to find the options in the space? Search engines are pretty limiting. Especially since this packed space has more than 10 options in each area.

New people to the space should be a high priority because there are more people we would like to come into the space than are already here today. I find the landscape helps them discover what’s in the space. It’s an onboarding tool. We need more of those.

Of course there are questions about netdata. Is netdata a competitor to Prometheus? As an outside observer, it looks like it can monitory lots of things including containers. With Prometheus I can monitory containers, microservices, and even VMs. Again, this is just me as an external observer.

Should people be able to discover the monitoring tools that can monitor containers in the landscape? That’s the question I would look at. Or, is there some other criteria? If so, it would be worth sharing so it’s not tribal knowledge locked in the minds of a few people.

--
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com

 


Re: netdata shitshow

Roger Klorese
 

No, my point is that what makes something sufficiently cloud-native to be on the landscape may not be totally obvious. 

Roger B.A. Klorese
Senior Product Manager
SUSE
705 5th Ave SSuite 1000
Seattle WA 98104

(P)+1 206.217.7432
(M)+1 425.444.5493
roger.klorese@...
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/RogerKlorese
GPG Key: D567 F186 A6AE D244 067E  95E4 E67D 019F 0670 D9CC


On Jun 7, 2019, at 11:16 AM, "costa+cncf@..." <costa+cncf@...> wrote:

Roger are you saying this applies to Netdata too?
Because Netdata is not a virtual appliance...


Re: netdata shitshow

Costa Tsaousis
 

Roger are you saying this applies to Netdata too?
Because Netdata is not a virtual appliance...


Re: netdata shitshow

Roger Klorese
 

If I recall correctly, for instance, when Harbor was added, it was a valuable component for cloud-native deployment - but it was not itself cloud-native, since it was delivered as a virtual appliance...

Roger B.A. Klorese
Senior Product Manager
SUSE
705 5th Ave SSuite 1000
Seattle WA 98104

(P)+1 206.217.7432
(M)+1 425.444.5493
roger.klorese@...
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/RogerKlorese
GPG Key: D567 F186 A6AE D244 067E  95E4 E67D 019F 0670 D9CC


On Jun 7, 2019, at 10:59 AM, Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

Alexis,

Maybe you can help me with this. The CNCF has a Cloud Native definition. A lot of things fit this bill in one way, shape, or form. Far more than are in the landscape. What is missing that the landscape should account for and why?

If something stricter is to be used it needs to be clearly documented and consistently applied. This allows for things to be fair and to keep it outside the realm of tribal knowledge.

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com



On Jun 7, 2019, at 1:35 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

Matt

OK, but:

We are doing a disservice to new users by publishing a "cloud native"
landscape, that contains non-cloud-native projects.  If we don't have
an opinion about what is cloud native and what is not, then what is
our purpose?

Other than I fully agree with you.

a



On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 6:01 PM Matthew Farina <matt@...> wrote:

When we first made the landscape, it (1) had a particular structure
and (2) attempted to show what projects are cloud native and where
they live in that structure.

Now, it has everything in it.  So it is meaningless.


I have to respectfully disagree that it’s meaningless.

Consider the case where someone is new to the space or a category in it. Where does one start to find the options in the space? Search engines are pretty limiting. Especially since this packed space has more than 10 options in each area.

New people to the space should be a high priority because there are more people we would like to come into the space than are already here today. I find the landscape helps them discover what’s in the space. It’s an onboarding tool. We need more of those.

Of course there are questions about netdata. Is netdata a competitor to Prometheus? As an outside observer, it looks like it can monitory lots of things including containers. With Prometheus I can monitory containers, microservices, and even VMs. Again, this is just me as an external observer.

Should people be able to discover the monitoring tools that can monitor containers in the landscape? That’s the question I would look at. Or, is there some other criteria? If so, it would be worth sharing so it’s not tribal knowledge locked in the minds of a few people.

--
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com



Re: netdata shitshow

Costa Tsaousis
 

Alexis, thank you for the information.

So, you say that TOC members discussed about Netdata and decided it is not cloud native and should not be invited to CNCF.

Are there any meeting minutes about this?
Which TOC members were present?
Was this decision unanimous?
Is the standard procedure to silently make such decisions without letting the founders know and giving them the option to provide additional information that may help in the decision?

To my understanding Netdata is the definition of "Cloud Native". It is the only monitoring solution that does not require any centralization of metrics, provides 1s granularity as standard, supports unlimited metrics per node, provides meaningful presentation and visualization for all metrics, comes pre-configured with alarms that are attached automatically to all metrics and can be used immediately after installation with zero configuration on most setups. So, I am very curious to see a list of Cloud Native criteria Netdata did not meet.

Thank you!


Re: netdata shitshow

Matt Farina
 

Alexis,

Maybe you can help me with this. The CNCF has a Cloud Native definition. A lot of things fit this bill in one way, shape, or form. Far more than are in the landscape. What is missing that the landscape should account for and why?

If something stricter is to be used it needs to be clearly documented and consistently applied. This allows for things to be fair and to keep it outside the realm of tribal knowledge.

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com



On Jun 7, 2019, at 1:35 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

Matt

OK, but:

We are doing a disservice to new users by publishing a "cloud native"
landscape, that contains non-cloud-native projects.  If we don't have
an opinion about what is cloud native and what is not, then what is
our purpose?

Other than I fully agree with you.

a



On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 6:01 PM Matthew Farina <matt@...> wrote:

When we first made the landscape, it (1) had a particular structure
and (2) attempted to show what projects are cloud native and where
they live in that structure.

Now, it has everything in it.  So it is meaningless.


I have to respectfully disagree that it’s meaningless.

Consider the case where someone is new to the space or a category in it. Where does one start to find the options in the space? Search engines are pretty limiting. Especially since this packed space has more than 10 options in each area.

New people to the space should be a high priority because there are more people we would like to come into the space than are already here today. I find the landscape helps them discover what’s in the space. It’s an onboarding tool. We need more of those.

Of course there are questions about netdata. Is netdata a competitor to Prometheus? As an outside observer, it looks like it can monitory lots of things including containers. With Prometheus I can monitory containers, microservices, and even VMs. Again, this is just me as an external observer.

Should people be able to discover the monitoring tools that can monitor containers in the landscape? That’s the question I would look at. Or, is there some other criteria? If so, it would be worth sharing so it’s not tribal knowledge locked in the minds of a few people.

--
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com



Re: netdata shitshow

alexis richardson
 

Josh, please see my reply to Matt which expresses why it is so diminished.

On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 6:39 PM Josh Michielsen
<josh.michielsen@condenastint.com> wrote:

I'm well aware you did. Certainly that makes your opinion a valuable one! But again I have to stress being it's founder doesn't mean you can speak for everyone else that finds it valuable.

On Fri, 7 Jun 2019, 6:33 pm Alexis Richardson, <alexis@weave.works> wrote:

Josh

I created the landscape, so I feel I have a dog in this race.

a

On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 6:19 PM Josh Michielsen
<josh.michielsen@condenastint.com> wrote:

This comes across as "I don't find it valuable therefore it has no value", which isn't exactly a nuanced opinion. You certainly don't represent my feelings on the topic. Much like how you found netdata's use of the CNCF logo misleading, you're speaking from a position of authority in a way that (to me at least) probably misrepresents the views of the CNCF and possibly the wider community.

Obviously you're free to have the opinion that it has no value, but I think you should represent that view more honestly.

On Fri, 7 Jun 2019, 5:34 pm alexis richardson, <alexis@weave.works> wrote:

When we first made the landscape, it (1) had a particular structure
and (2) attempted to show what projects are cloud native and where
they live in that structure.

Now, it has everything in it. So it is meaningless.

For example: Netdata is a fine project, but we struggled (as a TOC) to
see it as cloud native.


On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 5:32 PM Shilla Saebi <shilla.saebi@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Alexis,

Just wondering, if the CNCF landscape means nothing, why have it in the first place? Can you please explain further?

Thank you,

Shilla

On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 9:27 AM alexis richardson <alexis@weave.works> wrote:

Costa

"Alexis Richardson you posted that "the site doesn't say 'applied for
CNCF and was rejected'". Please explain the "rejected" part. When
netdata was rejected? How?"

After you presented to the TOC we decided to not invite netdata to
become a CNCF project.

The landscape means nothing, everyone is in it.

a

On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 4:12 PM <costa+cncf@netdata.cloud> wrote:

Hi all,

I am the founder of Netdata.

We have merged Dan's PR. Thank you Dan!

David McKay you mention that the above are "unethical wording used intentionally to cause inferences towards being CNCF supported/approved/certified". It would be if the phrase "in the landscape" was missing. You may of course mean that most people may not be aware of what the CNCF landscape is, so we should better clarify that Netdata is not CNCF supported/approved/certified. I ack that and this is why we merged Dan's PR immediately after it was submitted.

I was not aware that projects in the landscape are not authorized to use the CNCF logo. I thought that once a project has been accepted in the landscape, it has the right to feature the CNCF logo at its README. Shannon Williams and Matt Farina thank you for pointing out that use of the logo requires a separate approval. We are removing the CNCF logo from all our material.

David McKay you also mention that we are using this "endorsement" actively in our marketing campaigns. This is not true. Please check the dates of any posts you can find. You will see that we announced it once, immediately after we got accepted to the landscape. There were also a few posts when we bypassed Ansible and got in the 3rd position of the most starred open-source projects. That's it. There was never "active marketing" about it.

Alexis Richardson you posted that "the site doesn't say 'applied for CNCF and was rejected'". Please explain the "rejected" part. When netdata was rejected? How?

During the TOC presentation I did in Sep 2018, TOC members had a discussion on how politics influence CNCF. I think the approval mechanism in place (get TOC members as project sponsors) is the source of the problem. You require from project founders to spend time in public relations to promote their projects. I am sorry, I won't do that! I don't think this means CNCF rejected Netdata. I rejected the CNCF process and Netdata got stuck in the landscape.

Netdata is community driven. It modernizes and simplifies monitoring significantly and the community loves it. We have 39k github stars. 3.5k forks. 500k docker hub pulls per day, every day (on our 3 docker hub repos). 900k active users over the last 3 months. 80k git clones from 62k unique cloners in the last 15 days. On the project we have 10 full-time developers and we plan to be more 20 by the end of the year.

So, like it or not, CNCF supported/approved/certified or not, Netdata is thriving.

Be sure that I honor CNCF and I don't want to remove Netdata from the landscape. On our part, we plan to support more CNCF projects as we recently did for K8s and also become a Silver sponsor after we complete our Series A.

Thanks a lot for everything you do for the community and looking to collaborate more closely in the future.

Apologies for any mishaps on our side.




The information contained in this e-mail is of a confidential nature and is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution by you is prohibited and may be unlawful. Disclosure to any party other than the addressee, whether inadvertent or otherwise, is not intended to waive privilege or confidentiality. Internet communications are not secure and therefore Conde Nast does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the author.


The information contained in this e-mail is of a confidential nature and is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution by you is prohibited and may be unlawful. Disclosure to any party other than the addressee, whether inadvertent or otherwise, is not intended to waive privilege or confidentiality. Internet communications are not secure and therefore Conde Nast does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the author.


Re: netdata shitshow

Josh M <josh.michielsen@...>
 

I'm well aware you did. Certainly that makes your opinion a valuable one! But again I have to stress being it's founder doesn't mean you can speak for everyone else that finds it valuable. 

On Fri, 7 Jun 2019, 6:33 pm Alexis Richardson, <alexis@...> wrote:
Josh

I created the landscape, so I feel I have a dog in this race.

a

On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 6:19 PM Josh Michielsen
<josh.michielsen@...> wrote:
>
> This comes across as "I don't find it valuable therefore it has no value", which isn't exactly a nuanced opinion. You certainly don't represent my feelings on the topic. Much like how you found netdata's use of the CNCF logo misleading, you're speaking from a position of authority in a way that (to me at least) probably misrepresents the views of the CNCF and possibly the wider community.
>
> Obviously you're free to have the opinion that it has no value, but I think you should represent that view more honestly.
>
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2019, 5:34 pm alexis richardson, <alexis@...> wrote:
>>
>> When we first made the landscape, it (1) had a particular structure
>> and (2) attempted to show what projects are cloud native and where
>> they live in that structure.
>>
>> Now, it has everything in it.  So it is meaningless.
>>
>> For example: Netdata is a fine project, but we struggled (as a TOC) to
>> see it as cloud native.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 5:32 PM Shilla Saebi <shilla.saebi@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Alexis,
>> >
>> > Just wondering, if the CNCF landscape means nothing, why have it in the first place? Can you please explain further?
>> >
>> > Thank you,
>> >
>> > Shilla
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 9:27 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Costa
>> >>
>> >> "Alexis Richardson you posted that "the site doesn't say 'applied for
>> >> CNCF and was rejected'". Please explain the "rejected" part. When
>> >> netdata was rejected? How?"
>> >>
>> >> After you presented to the TOC we decided to not invite netdata to
>> >> become a CNCF project.
>> >>
>> >> The landscape means nothing, everyone is in it.
>> >>
>> >> a
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 4:12 PM <costa+cncf@...> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Hi all,
>> >> >
>> >> > I am the founder of Netdata.
>> >> >
>> >> > We have merged Dan's PR. Thank you Dan!
>> >> >
>> >> > David McKay you mention that the above are "unethical wording used intentionally to cause inferences towards being CNCF supported/approved/certified". It would be if the phrase "in the landscape" was missing. You may of course mean that most people may not be aware of what the CNCF landscape is, so we should better clarify that Netdata is not CNCF supported/approved/certified. I ack that and this is why we merged Dan's PR immediately after it was submitted.
>> >> >
>> >> > I was not aware that projects in the landscape are not authorized to use the CNCF logo. I thought that once a project has been accepted in the landscape, it has the right to feature the CNCF logo at its README. Shannon Williams and  Matt Farina thank you for pointing out that use of the logo requires a separate approval. We are removing the CNCF logo from all our material.
>> >> >
>> >> > David McKay you also mention that we are using this "endorsement" actively in our marketing campaigns. This is not true. Please check the dates of any posts you can find. You will see that we announced it once, immediately after we got accepted to the landscape. There were also a few posts when we bypassed Ansible and got in the 3rd position of the most starred open-source projects. That's it. There was never "active marketing" about it.
>> >> >
>> >> > Alexis Richardson you posted that "the site doesn't say 'applied for CNCF and was rejected'". Please explain the "rejected" part. When netdata was rejected? How?
>> >> >
>> >> > During the TOC presentation I did in Sep 2018, TOC members had a discussion on how politics influence CNCF. I think the approval mechanism in place (get TOC members as project sponsors) is the source of the problem. You require from project founders to spend time in public relations to promote their projects. I am sorry, I won't do that! I don't think this means CNCF rejected Netdata. I rejected the CNCF process and Netdata got stuck in the landscape.
>> >> >
>> >> > Netdata is community driven. It modernizes and simplifies monitoring significantly and the community loves it. We have 39k github stars. 3.5k forks. 500k docker hub pulls per day, every day (on our 3 docker hub repos). 900k active users over the last 3 months. 80k git clones from 62k unique cloners in the last 15 days. On the project we have 10 full-time developers and we plan to be more 20 by the end of the year.
>> >> >
>> >> > So, like it or not, CNCF supported/approved/certified or not, Netdata is thriving.
>> >> >
>> >> > Be sure that I honor CNCF and I don't want to remove Netdata from the landscape. On our part, we plan to support more CNCF projects as we recently did for K8s and also become a Silver sponsor after we complete our Series A.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks a lot for everything you do for the community and looking to collaborate more closely in the future.
>> >> >
>> >> > Apologies for any mishaps on our side.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> The information contained in this e-mail is of a confidential nature and is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution by you is prohibited and may be unlawful. Disclosure to any party other than the addressee, whether inadvertent or otherwise, is not intended to waive privilege or confidentiality. Internet communications are not secure and therefore Conde Nast does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the author.


The information contained in this e-mail is of a confidential nature and is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution by you is prohibited and may be unlawful. Disclosure to any party other than the addressee, whether inadvertent or otherwise, is not intended to waive privilege or confidentiality. Internet communications are not secure and therefore Conde Nast does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the author.


Re: netdata shitshow

alexis richardson
 

Matt

OK, but:

We are doing a disservice to new users by publishing a "cloud native"
landscape, that contains non-cloud-native projects. If we don't have
an opinion about what is cloud native and what is not, then what is
our purpose?

Other than I fully agree with you.

a

On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 6:01 PM Matthew Farina <matt@mattfarina.com> wrote:

When we first made the landscape, it (1) had a particular structure
and (2) attempted to show what projects are cloud native and where
they live in that structure.

Now, it has everything in it. So it is meaningless.


I have to respectfully disagree that it’s meaningless.

Consider the case where someone is new to the space or a category in it. Where does one start to find the options in the space? Search engines are pretty limiting. Especially since this packed space has more than 10 options in each area.

New people to the space should be a high priority because there are more people we would like to come into the space than are already here today. I find the landscape helps them discover what’s in the space. It’s an onboarding tool. We need more of those.

Of course there are questions about netdata. Is netdata a competitor to Prometheus? As an outside observer, it looks like it can monitory lots of things including containers. With Prometheus I can monitory containers, microservices, and even VMs. Again, this is just me as an external observer.

Should people be able to discover the monitoring tools that can monitor containers in the landscape? That’s the question I would look at. Or, is there some other criteria? If so, it would be worth sharing so it’s not tribal knowledge locked in the minds of a few people.

--
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com


Re: netdata shitshow

alexis richardson
 

Josh

I created the landscape, so I feel I have a dog in this race.

a

On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 6:19 PM Josh Michielsen
<josh.michielsen@condenastint.com> wrote:

This comes across as "I don't find it valuable therefore it has no value", which isn't exactly a nuanced opinion. You certainly don't represent my feelings on the topic. Much like how you found netdata's use of the CNCF logo misleading, you're speaking from a position of authority in a way that (to me at least) probably misrepresents the views of the CNCF and possibly the wider community.

Obviously you're free to have the opinion that it has no value, but I think you should represent that view more honestly.

On Fri, 7 Jun 2019, 5:34 pm alexis richardson, <alexis@weave.works> wrote:

When we first made the landscape, it (1) had a particular structure
and (2) attempted to show what projects are cloud native and where
they live in that structure.

Now, it has everything in it. So it is meaningless.

For example: Netdata is a fine project, but we struggled (as a TOC) to
see it as cloud native.


On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 5:32 PM Shilla Saebi <shilla.saebi@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Alexis,

Just wondering, if the CNCF landscape means nothing, why have it in the first place? Can you please explain further?

Thank you,

Shilla

On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 9:27 AM alexis richardson <alexis@weave.works> wrote:

Costa

"Alexis Richardson you posted that "the site doesn't say 'applied for
CNCF and was rejected'". Please explain the "rejected" part. When
netdata was rejected? How?"

After you presented to the TOC we decided to not invite netdata to
become a CNCF project.

The landscape means nothing, everyone is in it.

a

On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 4:12 PM <costa+cncf@netdata.cloud> wrote:

Hi all,

I am the founder of Netdata.

We have merged Dan's PR. Thank you Dan!

David McKay you mention that the above are "unethical wording used intentionally to cause inferences towards being CNCF supported/approved/certified". It would be if the phrase "in the landscape" was missing. You may of course mean that most people may not be aware of what the CNCF landscape is, so we should better clarify that Netdata is not CNCF supported/approved/certified. I ack that and this is why we merged Dan's PR immediately after it was submitted.

I was not aware that projects in the landscape are not authorized to use the CNCF logo. I thought that once a project has been accepted in the landscape, it has the right to feature the CNCF logo at its README. Shannon Williams and Matt Farina thank you for pointing out that use of the logo requires a separate approval. We are removing the CNCF logo from all our material.

David McKay you also mention that we are using this "endorsement" actively in our marketing campaigns. This is not true. Please check the dates of any posts you can find. You will see that we announced it once, immediately after we got accepted to the landscape. There were also a few posts when we bypassed Ansible and got in the 3rd position of the most starred open-source projects. That's it. There was never "active marketing" about it.

Alexis Richardson you posted that "the site doesn't say 'applied for CNCF and was rejected'". Please explain the "rejected" part. When netdata was rejected? How?

During the TOC presentation I did in Sep 2018, TOC members had a discussion on how politics influence CNCF. I think the approval mechanism in place (get TOC members as project sponsors) is the source of the problem. You require from project founders to spend time in public relations to promote their projects. I am sorry, I won't do that! I don't think this means CNCF rejected Netdata. I rejected the CNCF process and Netdata got stuck in the landscape.

Netdata is community driven. It modernizes and simplifies monitoring significantly and the community loves it. We have 39k github stars. 3.5k forks. 500k docker hub pulls per day, every day (on our 3 docker hub repos). 900k active users over the last 3 months. 80k git clones from 62k unique cloners in the last 15 days. On the project we have 10 full-time developers and we plan to be more 20 by the end of the year.

So, like it or not, CNCF supported/approved/certified or not, Netdata is thriving.

Be sure that I honor CNCF and I don't want to remove Netdata from the landscape. On our part, we plan to support more CNCF projects as we recently did for K8s and also become a Silver sponsor after we complete our Series A.

Thanks a lot for everything you do for the community and looking to collaborate more closely in the future.

Apologies for any mishaps on our side.




The information contained in this e-mail is of a confidential nature and is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution by you is prohibited and may be unlawful. Disclosure to any party other than the addressee, whether inadvertent or otherwise, is not intended to waive privilege or confidentiality. Internet communications are not secure and therefore Conde Nast does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the author.


Re: netdata shitshow

Josh M <josh.michielsen@...>
 

This comes across as "I don't find it valuable therefore it has no value", which isn't exactly a nuanced opinion. You certainly don't represent my feelings on the topic. Much like how you found netdata's use of the CNCF logo misleading, you're speaking from a position of authority in a way that (to me at least) probably misrepresents the views of the CNCF and possibly the wider community.

Obviously you're free to have the opinion that it has no value, but I think you should represent that view more honestly.

On Fri, 7 Jun 2019, 5:34 pm alexis richardson, <alexis@...> wrote:
When we first made the landscape, it (1) had a particular structure
and (2) attempted to show what projects are cloud native and where
they live in that structure.

Now, it has everything in it.  So it is meaningless.

For example: Netdata is a fine project, but we struggled (as a TOC) to
see it as cloud native.


On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 5:32 PM Shilla Saebi <shilla.saebi@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Alexis,
>
> Just wondering, if the CNCF landscape means nothing, why have it in the first place? Can you please explain further?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Shilla
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 9:27 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
>>
>> Costa
>>
>> "Alexis Richardson you posted that "the site doesn't say 'applied for
>> CNCF and was rejected'". Please explain the "rejected" part. When
>> netdata was rejected? How?"
>>
>> After you presented to the TOC we decided to not invite netdata to
>> become a CNCF project.
>>
>> The landscape means nothing, everyone is in it.
>>
>> a
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 4:12 PM <costa+cncf@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I am the founder of Netdata.
>> >
>> > We have merged Dan's PR. Thank you Dan!
>> >
>> > David McKay you mention that the above are "unethical wording used intentionally to cause inferences towards being CNCF supported/approved/certified". It would be if the phrase "in the landscape" was missing. You may of course mean that most people may not be aware of what the CNCF landscape is, so we should better clarify that Netdata is not CNCF supported/approved/certified. I ack that and this is why we merged Dan's PR immediately after it was submitted.
>> >
>> > I was not aware that projects in the landscape are not authorized to use the CNCF logo. I thought that once a project has been accepted in the landscape, it has the right to feature the CNCF logo at its README. Shannon Williams and  Matt Farina thank you for pointing out that use of the logo requires a separate approval. We are removing the CNCF logo from all our material.
>> >
>> > David McKay you also mention that we are using this "endorsement" actively in our marketing campaigns. This is not true. Please check the dates of any posts you can find. You will see that we announced it once, immediately after we got accepted to the landscape. There were also a few posts when we bypassed Ansible and got in the 3rd position of the most starred open-source projects. That's it. There was never "active marketing" about it.
>> >
>> > Alexis Richardson you posted that "the site doesn't say 'applied for CNCF and was rejected'". Please explain the "rejected" part. When netdata was rejected? How?
>> >
>> > During the TOC presentation I did in Sep 2018, TOC members had a discussion on how politics influence CNCF. I think the approval mechanism in place (get TOC members as project sponsors) is the source of the problem. You require from project founders to spend time in public relations to promote their projects. I am sorry, I won't do that! I don't think this means CNCF rejected Netdata. I rejected the CNCF process and Netdata got stuck in the landscape.
>> >
>> > Netdata is community driven. It modernizes and simplifies monitoring significantly and the community loves it. We have 39k github stars. 3.5k forks. 500k docker hub pulls per day, every day (on our 3 docker hub repos). 900k active users over the last 3 months. 80k git clones from 62k unique cloners in the last 15 days. On the project we have 10 full-time developers and we plan to be more 20 by the end of the year.
>> >
>> > So, like it or not, CNCF supported/approved/certified or not, Netdata is thriving.
>> >
>> > Be sure that I honor CNCF and I don't want to remove Netdata from the landscape. On our part, we plan to support more CNCF projects as we recently did for K8s and also become a Silver sponsor after we complete our Series A.
>> >
>> > Thanks a lot for everything you do for the community and looking to collaborate more closely in the future.
>> >
>> > Apologies for any mishaps on our side.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>





The information contained in this e-mail is of a confidential nature and is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution by you is prohibited and may be unlawful. Disclosure to any party other than the addressee, whether inadvertent or otherwise, is not intended to waive privilege or confidentiality. Internet communications are not secure and therefore Conde Nast does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the author.


Re: netdata shitshow

Matt Farina
 

When we first made the landscape, it (1) had a particular structure
and (2) attempted to show what projects are cloud native and where
they live in that structure.

Now, it has everything in it.  So it is meaningless.

I have to respectfully disagree that it’s meaningless.

Consider the case where someone is new to the space or a category in it. Where does one start to find the options in the space? Search engines are pretty limiting. Especially since this packed space has more than 10 options in each area.

New people to the space should be a high priority because there are more people we would like to come into the space than are already here today. I find the landscape helps them discover what’s in the space. It’s an onboarding tool. We need more of those.

Of course there are questions about netdata. Is netdata a competitor to Prometheus? As an outside observer, it looks like it can monitory lots of things including containers. With Prometheus I can monitory containers, microservices, and even VMs. Again, this is just me as an external observer.

Should people be able to discover the monitoring tools that can monitor containers in the landscape? That’s the question I would look at. Or, is there some other criteria? If so, it would be worth sharing so it’s not tribal knowledge locked in the minds of a few people.

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com


Re: netdata shitshow

alexis richardson
 

When we first made the landscape, it (1) had a particular structure
and (2) attempted to show what projects are cloud native and where
they live in that structure.

Now, it has everything in it. So it is meaningless.

For example: Netdata is a fine project, but we struggled (as a TOC) to
see it as cloud native.

On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 5:32 PM Shilla Saebi <shilla.saebi@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Alexis,

Just wondering, if the CNCF landscape means nothing, why have it in the first place? Can you please explain further?

Thank you,

Shilla

On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 9:27 AM alexis richardson <alexis@weave.works> wrote:

Costa

"Alexis Richardson you posted that "the site doesn't say 'applied for
CNCF and was rejected'". Please explain the "rejected" part. When
netdata was rejected? How?"

After you presented to the TOC we decided to not invite netdata to
become a CNCF project.

The landscape means nothing, everyone is in it.

a

On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 4:12 PM <costa+cncf@netdata.cloud> wrote:

Hi all,

I am the founder of Netdata.

We have merged Dan's PR. Thank you Dan!

David McKay you mention that the above are "unethical wording used intentionally to cause inferences towards being CNCF supported/approved/certified". It would be if the phrase "in the landscape" was missing. You may of course mean that most people may not be aware of what the CNCF landscape is, so we should better clarify that Netdata is not CNCF supported/approved/certified. I ack that and this is why we merged Dan's PR immediately after it was submitted.

I was not aware that projects in the landscape are not authorized to use the CNCF logo. I thought that once a project has been accepted in the landscape, it has the right to feature the CNCF logo at its README. Shannon Williams and Matt Farina thank you for pointing out that use of the logo requires a separate approval. We are removing the CNCF logo from all our material.

David McKay you also mention that we are using this "endorsement" actively in our marketing campaigns. This is not true. Please check the dates of any posts you can find. You will see that we announced it once, immediately after we got accepted to the landscape. There were also a few posts when we bypassed Ansible and got in the 3rd position of the most starred open-source projects. That's it. There was never "active marketing" about it.

Alexis Richardson you posted that "the site doesn't say 'applied for CNCF and was rejected'". Please explain the "rejected" part. When netdata was rejected? How?

During the TOC presentation I did in Sep 2018, TOC members had a discussion on how politics influence CNCF. I think the approval mechanism in place (get TOC members as project sponsors) is the source of the problem. You require from project founders to spend time in public relations to promote their projects. I am sorry, I won't do that! I don't think this means CNCF rejected Netdata. I rejected the CNCF process and Netdata got stuck in the landscape.

Netdata is community driven. It modernizes and simplifies monitoring significantly and the community loves it. We have 39k github stars. 3.5k forks. 500k docker hub pulls per day, every day (on our 3 docker hub repos). 900k active users over the last 3 months. 80k git clones from 62k unique cloners in the last 15 days. On the project we have 10 full-time developers and we plan to be more 20 by the end of the year.

So, like it or not, CNCF supported/approved/certified or not, Netdata is thriving.

Be sure that I honor CNCF and I don't want to remove Netdata from the landscape. On our part, we plan to support more CNCF projects as we recently did for K8s and also become a Silver sponsor after we complete our Series A.

Thanks a lot for everything you do for the community and looking to collaborate more closely in the future.

Apologies for any mishaps on our side.



Re: netdata shitshow

Shilla Saebi
 

Hi Alexis,

Just wondering, if the CNCF landscape means nothing, why have it in the first place? Can you please explain further?

Thank you,

Shilla


On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 9:27 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Costa

"Alexis Richardson you posted that "the site doesn't say 'applied for
CNCF and was rejected'". Please explain the "rejected" part. When
netdata was rejected? How?"

After you presented to the TOC we decided to not invite netdata to
become a CNCF project.

The landscape means nothing, everyone is in it.

a

On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 4:12 PM <costa+cncf@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am the founder of Netdata.
>
> We have merged Dan's PR. Thank you Dan!
>
> David McKay you mention that the above are "unethical wording used intentionally to cause inferences towards being CNCF supported/approved/certified". It would be if the phrase "in the landscape" was missing. You may of course mean that most people may not be aware of what the CNCF landscape is, so we should better clarify that Netdata is not CNCF supported/approved/certified. I ack that and this is why we merged Dan's PR immediately after it was submitted.
>
> I was not aware that projects in the landscape are not authorized to use the CNCF logo. I thought that once a project has been accepted in the landscape, it has the right to feature the CNCF logo at its README. Shannon Williams and  Matt Farina thank you for pointing out that use of the logo requires a separate approval. We are removing the CNCF logo from all our material.
>
> David McKay you also mention that we are using this "endorsement" actively in our marketing campaigns. This is not true. Please check the dates of any posts you can find. You will see that we announced it once, immediately after we got accepted to the landscape. There were also a few posts when we bypassed Ansible and got in the 3rd position of the most starred open-source projects. That's it. There was never "active marketing" about it.
>
> Alexis Richardson you posted that "the site doesn't say 'applied for CNCF and was rejected'". Please explain the "rejected" part. When netdata was rejected? How?
>
> During the TOC presentation I did in Sep 2018, TOC members had a discussion on how politics influence CNCF. I think the approval mechanism in place (get TOC members as project sponsors) is the source of the problem. You require from project founders to spend time in public relations to promote their projects. I am sorry, I won't do that! I don't think this means CNCF rejected Netdata. I rejected the CNCF process and Netdata got stuck in the landscape.
>
> Netdata is community driven. It modernizes and simplifies monitoring significantly and the community loves it. We have 39k github stars. 3.5k forks. 500k docker hub pulls per day, every day (on our 3 docker hub repos). 900k active users over the last 3 months. 80k git clones from 62k unique cloners in the last 15 days. On the project we have 10 full-time developers and we plan to be more 20 by the end of the year.
>
> So, like it or not, CNCF supported/approved/certified or not, Netdata is thriving.
>
> Be sure that I honor CNCF and I don't want to remove Netdata from the landscape. On our part, we plan to support more CNCF projects as we recently did for K8s and also become a Silver sponsor after we complete our Series A.
>
> Thanks a lot for everything you do for the community and looking to collaborate more closely in the future.
>
> Apologies for any mishaps on our side.
>
>



2481 - 2500 of 5911