wattersjames
Joined 17 years ago
Karma
31
Submissions
21
Member since
Jun 4
Recent submissions
Comment · 14 years ago
I'm not an evangelist, but I am a member of the Cloud Foundry team, and responsible for partner development and ecosystem.
I think you are creating a straw man question as the overwhelming majority of partners have open sourced most/all of the applicable code. Take a look at http://www.ironfoundry.org for instance from Tier3 who has taken a very liberal approach to open source with their Cloud Foundry based service.
Appfog has also contributed back their code for PHP to Cloud Foundry. They are doing a very nice job of expanding the potential deployment targets as one of their competitive advantages (HP, Joyent, most EC2 regions).
Thus to answer your question I've seen robust contributions back with a very liberal amount of open source code, and a focus on value-add through service delivery options.
I'm curious about your view of the hybrid deployment model many of our users prefer with an on-prem instance that can be deployed to multiple service providers.
Comment · 14 years ago
Solomon, wait, just 2 days ago you said CF was throw away code and not on your radar? Care to explain your pivot to 'intriguing'?
Comment · 15 years ago
Don't be so sure this started as a PR pitch...Cade has been covering Cloud Foundry and Appfog since they adopted Cloud Foundry, see all of his articles about it over at the Register, example: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/13/appfog_adds_ruby_and...
Comment · 15 years ago
Yes it is, and we aren't going away any time soon. :) We'll more than be here in five years.
Comment · 15 years ago
Congrats to Lucas on a bold move to shake up the PaaS start-up space.
Comment · 15 years ago
If you are in the bay area on the 13th the Cloud Foundry team is hosting its first meetup. Come ask the tough questions to engineering:
Comment · 17 years ago
I think the point I'm really trying to make is that you can't just load a program into the cloud. The cloud is more like a software based mainframe if anything, but it requires a whole new set of architectures and a different way of thinking--and has radically different economic forces.
Comment · 17 years ago
Its easier to trust someone with your data, if they have triple redundancy built into their architecture. S3 has that built in; a single MS SAN box does not. That's why its an important distinction.
You trust people with the right, next generation trust worthy architecture.
Comment · 17 years ago
Cloud storage systems like S3 are often inferior in raw latency/response performance to a SAN which has VERY expensive adaptor silicon in it--but they are far superior on built in automatic, systematic, redundancy and global fail over and dispersal.
Comment · 17 years ago
Its the Y combinator guys I was thinking of when I wrote this one. Sincerely curious for their thoughts.
wattersjames.com