Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why IBM doesn’t agree with Google’s Open Usage Commons for the Istio project

developer.ibm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 114 posts

Re: Why IBM doesn’t agree with Google’s Open Usage Commons for the Istio project

#91

Post by gary-kim »

znpy wrote: post #70
fcantournet wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google did profit massively from kubernetes, moreso than any other big company (Hello Red Hat lol) It was (for better and for worse) the #1 reason to adopt GCP for our main cloud platform, and we're not alone. It's has seen immense adoption that it wouldn't have had if it hadn't been in a neutral foundation. The work was definitely not done by Google alone (~30%). IS GCP "still" #3 ? Yes. Is it because they didn't ge…

> Google did profit massively from kubernetes i should check if it's still the case, but I remember a time where every effing kubernetes tutorial would make you spin up a k8s cluster on google cloud.

I remember learning about Kubernetes for the first time. Thought it sounded cool so I started looking into how to make my own cluster. I think every other tutorial was like: "next, go to CLOUD_PROVIDER and sign up for an account to make a cluster".

I'm trying to look up how to make my own cluster, not use someone else's. Figured it out eventually but it took way more searching then for learning how to use k8s.

Re: Why IBM doesn’t agree with Google’s Open Usage Commons for the Istio project

#92

Post by jeffbee »

brutus1213 wrote: post #85
foobiekr wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Geeze. If kubernetes is google’s Crown Jewels they must be in terrible shape internally.

Not a google dev but I looked closely at K8s in the early days .. in my personal opinion, I think it is complete fiction that K8s was Google opensourcing their actual code (in the traditional way). I think they rewrote the bulk of the initial code drop. So agreed that K8s is not Google's crown jewels by any stretch. They were inspired by the Borg paper I'm guessing though the early scheduler in K8s was laughable IIRC…

This is confirmed by K8s/Borg devs on blogs and Twitter. k8s shares not one line of code with Borg. One easy way to tell is every line of Borg is in C++ and every line of k8s is Go.

This thread is a pretty good explanation of how k8s is derived from the need to be compatible with some Borg concepts, while not deriving from Borg itself.

https://twitter.com/bgrant0607/status/1131202013411176448

Re: Why IBM doesn’t agree with Google’s Open Usage Commons for the Istio project

#93

Post by mikeyouse »

zekrioca wrote: post #57
sg1234 wrote: post #24

Disclaimer: i work for Google Cloud and use istio daily. I don't think this matters to practitioners, it's a solution to fix trademark issues. Open Source Licenses (like Apache under which istio is released) doesn't solve the trademark (TM) issue, they are vague around this topic, so the use of the name/logo/mascot to release any sort of managed or supported solution based on an OSS tool becomes a hurdle, a lot of mo…

> and it's in their best interest that things are complicated as they can make money out of that. Care to supply some evidences for such claim?

Right? How is CNCF 'making money' from K8s when it's a nonprofit that by law must spend 100% of the funds it raises on the project?

Re: Why IBM doesn’t agree with Google’s Open Usage Commons for the Istio project

#94

Post by znpy »

gary-kim wrote: post #91
znpy wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google did profit massively from kubernetes i should check if it's still the case, but I remember a time where every effing kubernetes tutorial would make you spin up a k8s cluster on google cloud.

I remember learning about Kubernetes for the first time. Thought it sounded cool so I started looking into how to make my own cluster. I think every other tutorial was like: "next, go to CLOUD_PROVIDER and sign up for an account to make a cluster". I'm trying to look up how to make my own cluster, not use someone else's. Figured it out eventually but it took way more searching then for learning how to use k8s.

yes, I had the same experience and the same issues.

Re: Why IBM doesn’t agree with Google’s Open Usage Commons for the Istio project

#95

Post by sg1234 »

koffiezet wrote: post #54
sg1234 wrote: post #24

Disclaimer: i work for Google Cloud and use istio daily. I don't think this matters to practitioners, it's a solution to fix trademark issues. Open Source Licenses (like Apache under which istio is released) doesn't solve the trademark (TM) issue, they are vague around this topic, so the use of the name/logo/mascot to release any sort of managed or supported solution based on an OSS tool becomes a hurdle, a lot of mo…

> acts as a mediator, so any decision around trademark takes soo much time and effort because CNCF has to get the blessing of everyone or build something neutral (like the k8s certification) Sorry, but that's the nature of standardisation, and the price you pay if you want to show you're really vendor-neutral. For me, actions like these make Istio go from the almost de-facto default choice for a service mesh, to sudd…

> Sorry, but that's the nature of standardisation, and the price you pay if you want to show you're really vendor-neutral. For me, actions like these make Istio go from the almost de-facto default choice for a service mesh, to suddenly wanting to consider other stuff.

That's not what the Cloud industry is about, it's about speed and time to market.

> and it's in their best interest that things are complicated as they can make money out of that.

Valid point, i have no evidence to support this, i just feel like CNCF looks for any opportunity to monetise itself for reasons i don't understand (Certifications, Conferences...). For a non profit that doesn't hire the core developers of the tools they support (most are hire by tech companies) i don't see why kubecon should cost 1k$+

Re: Why IBM doesn’t agree with Google’s Open Usage Commons for the Istio project

#96

Post by sg1234 »

caniszczyk wrote: post #82
sg1234 wrote: post #24

Disclaimer: i work for Google Cloud and use istio daily. I don't think this matters to practitioners, it's a solution to fix trademark issues. Open Source Licenses (like Apache under which istio is released) doesn't solve the trademark (TM) issue, they are vague around this topic, so the use of the name/logo/mascot to release any sort of managed or supported solution based on an OSS tool becomes a hurdle, a lot of mo…

"The problem with CNCF and why istio was not transferred to that org is that CNCF acts as a mediator, so any decision around trademark takes soo much time and effort because CNCF has to get the blessing of everyone or build something neutral (like the k8s certification), and it's in their best interest that things are complicated as they can make money out of that." This article paints a more accurate picture of the…

Thanks i will read that article.

Re: Why IBM doesn’t agree with Google’s Open Usage Commons for the Istio project

#97

Post by sg1234 »

BossingAround wrote: post #84
sg1234 wrote: post #24

Disclaimer: i work for Google Cloud and use istio daily. I don't think this matters to practitioners, it's a solution to fix trademark issues. Open Source Licenses (like Apache under which istio is released) doesn't solve the trademark (TM) issue, they are vague around this topic, so the use of the name/logo/mascot to release any sort of managed or supported solution based on an OSS tool becomes a hurdle, a lot of mo…

> The problem with CNCF and why istio was not transferred to that org is that CNCF acts as a mediator, so any decision around trademark takes soo much time and effort because CNCF has to get the blessing of everyone or build something neutral (like the k8s certification), and it's in their best interest that things are complicated as they can make money out of that. This is a cynical point of view. At this point, Ist…

Valid point, and that's the balance i think OUC is trying to bring, not being as un-flexible as CNCF and trying to be as open to the community as possible. Again OUC is about the trademark and not the licensing of the software which is what contributors and maintainers should care about in my opinion.

Re: Why IBM doesn’t agree with Google’s Open Usage Commons for the Istio project

#98

Post by sg1234 »

holstvoogd wrote: post #47
sg1234 wrote: post #24

Disclaimer: i work for Google Cloud and use istio daily. I don't think this matters to practitioners, it's a solution to fix trademark issues. Open Source Licenses (like Apache under which istio is released) doesn't solve the trademark (TM) issue, they are vague around this topic, so the use of the name/logo/mascot to release any sort of managed or supported solution based on an OSS tool becomes a hurdle, a lot of mo…

K8s was transferred to CNCF a.o. Why is this different? Or is this a reaction to issues with those transfers?

Loosing an opportunity to make business :)

Re: Why IBM doesn’t agree with Google’s Open Usage Commons for the Istio project

#99

Post by sg1234 »

mikeyouse wrote: post #93
zekrioca wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and it's in their best interest that things are complicated as they can make money out of that. Care to supply some evidences for such claim?

Right? How is CNCF 'making money' from K8s when it's a nonprofit that by law must spend 100% of the funds it raises on the project?

As i commented above i don't have any evidence supported by data, just an opinion, i don't understand why kubecon cost 1k$+ while as a speaker you have to pay your flight...

I know non-profit in the US has to fill public tax returns, i will be interested in figuring out how much execs earn at CNCF!

Re: Why IBM doesn’t agree with Google’s Open Usage Commons for the Istio project

#100

Post by sg1234 »

ksec wrote: post #37
sg1234 wrote: post #24

Disclaimer: i work for Google Cloud and use istio daily. I don't think this matters to practitioners, it's a solution to fix trademark issues. Open Source Licenses (like Apache under which istio is released) doesn't solve the trademark (TM) issue, they are vague around this topic, so the use of the name/logo/mascot to release any sort of managed or supported solution based on an OSS tool becomes a hurdle, a lot of mo…

So Apache is sort of like BSD+Patents, are there any licenses that are BSD + Patents + Trademarks?

Not to my knowledge, most OSS licenses leave out the trademark issue, happy to be proven wrong.
Post reply on HN