Category Archives: Open Trends

OpenStack Interop, Container Security, Install & Open Source Posts

Posted on by
Reply

In case you missed it, I posted A LOT of content this week on other sites covering topics for OpenStack Interop, Container Security, Anti-Universal Installers and Monetizing Open Source.  Here are link-bait titles & blurbs from each post so you can decide which topics pique your interest.

Thirteen Ways Containers are More Secure than Virtual Machines on TheNewStack.com

Last year, conventional wisdom had it that containers were much less secure than virtual machines (VMs)! Since containers have such thin separating walls; it was easy to paint these back door risks with a broad brush.  Here’s a reality check: Front door attacks and unpatched vulnerabilities are much more likely than these backdoor hacks.

It’s Time to Slay the Universal Installer Unicorn on DevOps.com 

While many people want a universal “easy button installer,” they also want it to work on their unique snowflake of infrastructures, tools, networks and operating systems.  Because there is so much needful variation and change, it is better to give up on open source projects trying to own an installer and instead focus on making their required components more resilient and portable.

King of the hill? Discussing practical OpenStack interoperability on OpenStack SuperUser

Can OpenStack take the crown as cloud king? In our increasingly hybrid infrastructure environment, the path to the top means making it easier to user to defect from the current leaders (Amazon AWS; VMware) instead of asking them to blaze new trails. Here are my notes from a recent discussion about that exact topic…

Have OpenSource, Will Profit?! 5 thoughts from Battery Ventures OSS event on RobHirschfeld.com

As “open source eats software” the profit imperative becomes ever more important to figure out.  We have to find ways to fund this development or acknowledge that software will simply become waste IP and largess from mega brands.  The later outcome is not particularly appealing or innovative.

Have OpenSource, Will Profit?! 5 thoughts from Battery Ventures OSS event

Posted on by
2

As “open source eats software” the profit imperative becomes ever more important to figure out.  We have to find ways to fund this development or acknowledge that software will simply become waste IP and largess from mega brands.  The later outcome is not particularly appealing or innovative.

wp-1465310489656.jpgLast week, Battery Ventures hosted a “Venture and Open Source Software (OSS)” event that crystallized several key points around OSS business models.  The speakers (really, check out the list!) were deeply experienced with thoughtful points that reflected a balanced perspective.  In those post, I’m trying to synthesize rather than give attribution.  Please review the vibrant #BVOSS twitter stream for specific quotes and pictures.

There is no valuation difference between for OSS and Proprietary.  OSS is a business model, you are running a software company.  

It’s hard to monetize a company with OSS.  While there are limited IPO benchmarks; the model is clearly being adopted deeply.  It’s also not clear if it’s better to be the primary driver for a project or to ride a larger effort.

Should companies avoid OSS?  It’s hard to monetize any idea – OSS is not a deciding factor.  At the end of the day, it seemed pretty clear that open source strategies are simply a new components of building software companies.

Big companies are willing to fund OSS projects (but late in the cycle).

Companies are recognized that they have a role to play in open source by funding projects.  They do this to ensure the project is sustained, maintain influence and ensure road map direction.  It’s often via support contracts.

This influence appears to be late in the OSS cycle.  It’s not clear how companies invest in early phases of development that are critical to start-up success.  In my daily business, I’d love to see companies set aside low-barrier $20-100k exploration funds to seed PoCs so that early stage projects could afford to hand-hold enterprise adopters.

I can think of many examples where the project is effectively spun out of other corporate or consulting efforts (including RackN core OSS IP, Digital Rebar).  IMHO, it’s less common to have an organic OSS company.

OSS companies need to hold something back to monetize.

This point was made emphatically multiple times.  Customers do not fund OSS projects out of good will, some hook is needed to entice payment.  It does not take much (Marten Mickos called it a pinch of salt) but having something was considered important.  Generally these are extras that are needed for advanced or scale users.

While this approach draws negative comments, the “open core” approach seemed to be the expectation from the room.  An all-things-open approach would result in trying to sell consulting services as the primary revenue model – this is generally not considered an attractive venture strategy for start-ups.

OSS value to the business increases with ubiquity/popularity of the project.

This may be obvious; however, an effective OSS model needs to have community validation.  The concept is that there is some conversion ratio, so having users makes up for a poor ratio.  Overall, the room assumed that community was a good thing.

I can think of cases where having a HUGE user base did not immediately translate into monetization.  In some cases (OpenStack, Docker), it translated into a large ecosystem and brisk competition.

As a Service (Hosted OSS) may be critical monetization path.

It was recognized that service providers (Amazon was the goat here) are doing a very robust job monetizing OSS.  For example, users pay significant premiums for MySQL hosted by RDS while they are much less willing to pay Oracle when they run it themselves.  It’s very clear that managed service models rely on cheap software.

It’s equally clear that users are willing to pay for services when they are reluctant to buy licenses.  The room felt that OSS companies should seriously evaluate this path to revenue and adoption.

Overall, it was a fantastic summit that left me, as a OSS start-up entrepreneur,  thinking carefully about how we are shaping businesses to create and exploit OSS.  Getting these models right is essential to maintaining our pace of innovation.

Open Source as Reality TV and Burning Data Centers [gcOnDemand podcast notes]

Posted on by
2

During the OpenStack summit, Eric Wright (@discoposse) and I talked about a wide range of topics from scoring success of OpenStack early goals to burning down traditional data centers.

Why burn down your data center (and move to public cloud)? Because your ops process are too hard to change. Rob talks about how hybrid provides a path if we can made ops more composable.

Here are my notes from the audio podcast (source):

1:30 Why “zehicle” as a handle? Portmanteau from electrics cars… zero + vehicle

Let’s talk about OpenStack & Cloud…

  • OpenStack History
    • 2:15 Rob’s OpenStack history from Dell and Hyperscale
    • 3:20 Early thoughts of a Cloud API that could be reused
    • 3:40 The practical danger of Vendor lock-in
    • 4:30 How we implemented “no main corporate owner” by choice
  • About the Open in OpenStack
    • 5:20 Rob decomposes what “open” means because there are multiple meanings
    • 6:10 Price of having all open tools for “always open” choice and process
    • 7:10 Observation that OpenStack values having open over delivering product
    • 8:15 Community is great but a trade off. We prioritize it over implementation.
  • Q: 9:10 What if we started later? Would Docker make an impact?
    • Part of challenge for OpenStack was teaching vendors & corporate consumers “how to open source”
  • Q: 10:40 Did we accomplish what we wanted from the first summit?
    • Mixed results – some things we exceeded (like growing community) while some are behind (product adoption & interoperability).
  • 13:30 Interop, Refstack and Defcore Challenges. Rob is disappointed on interop based on implementations.
  • Q: 15:00 Who completes with OpenStack?
    • There are real alternatives. APIs do not matter as much as we thought.
    • 15:50 OpenStack vendor support is powerful
  • Q: 16:20 What makes OpenStack successful?
    • Big tent confuses the ecosystem & push the goal posts out
    • “Big community” is not a good definition of success for the project.
  • 18:10 Reality TV of open source – people like watching train wrecks
  • 18:45 Hybrid is the reality for IT users
  • 20:10 We have a need to define core and focus on composability. Rob has been focused on the link between hybrid and composability.
  • 22:10 Rob’s preference is that OpenStack would be smaller. Big tent is really ecosystem projects and we want that ecosystem to be multi-cloud.

Now, about RackN, bare metal, Crowbar and Digital Rebar….

  • 23:30 (re)Intro
  • 24:30 VC market is not metal friendly even though everything runs on metal!
  • 25:00 Lack of consistency translates into lack of shared ops
  • 25:30 Crowbar was an MVP – the key is to understand what we learned from it
  • 26:00 Digital Rebar started with composability and focus on operations
  • 27:00 What is hybrid now? Not just private to public.
  • 30:00 How do we make infrastructure not matter? Multi-dimensional hybrid.
  • 31:00 Digital Rebar is orchestration for composable infrastructure.
  • Q: 31:40 Do people get it?
    • Yes. Automation is moving to hybrid devops – “ops is ops” and it should not matter if it’s cloud or metal.
  • 32:15 “I don’t want to burn down my data center” – can you bring cloud ops to my private data center?

Notes from OSCON Container Podcast: Dan Berg, Phil Estes and Rob Hirschfeld

Posted on by
2

At OSCON, I had the pleasure of doing a IBM Dojo Podcast with some deep experts in the container and data center space: Dan Berg (@DanCBerg) and Phil Estes (@estesp).

ibm-dojo-podcast-show-art-16x9-150x150We dove into a discussion around significant trends in the container space, how open technology relates to containers and looked toward the technology’s future. We also previewed next month’s DockerCon, which is set for June 19-21 in Seattle.

Highlights!  We think containers will be considered MORE SECURE next year and also have some comments about the linguistic shift from Docker to CONTAINERS.”

Here are my notes from the recording with time stamps if you want to skip ahead:

  • 00:35 – What are the trends in Containers?
    • Rob: We are still figuring out how to make them work in terms of networking & storage
    • Dan: There are still a lot of stateful work moving into containers that need storage
    • Phil: We need to use open standards to help customers navigate options
  • 2:45 – Are the changes keeping people from moving forward?
    • Phil: Not if you start with the right guidelines and architecture
    • Dan: It’s OK to pick one and keep going because you need to build expertise
    • Rob: RackN experience changed Digital Rebar to microservices was an iterative experience
  • 5:00 Dan likes that there is so much experimentation that’s forcing us to talk about how applications are engineered
  • 5:45  Rob points out that we got 5 minutes in without saying “Docker”
    • There are a lot of orchestration choices but there’s confusion between Docker and the container ecosystem.
  • 7:00 We’re at OSCON, how far has the technology come in being open?
    • Phil thinks that open container initiative (OCI) is helping bring a lot of players to the field.
    • Dan likes that IBM is experimenting in community and drive interactions between projects.
    • Rob is not sure that we need to get everyone on the same page: open source allows people to pursue their own path.
  • 10:50 We have to figure out how to compensate companies & individuals for their work
    • Dan: if you’ve got any worthwhile product, you’ve got some open source component of it.  There are various ways to profit around that.
  • 13:00 What are we going to be talking about this time next year?
    • Rob (joking) we’ll say containers are old and microkernels are great!
    • Rob wants to be talking about operations but knows that it’s never interesting
    • Phil moving containers way from root access into more secure operations
    • Dan believes that we’ll start to consider containers as more secure than what we have today.  <- Rob strongly agrees!
  • 17:20 What is the impact of Containers on Ops?  Aka DevOps
    • Dan said “Impact is HUGE!”  > Developers are going to get Ops & Capabilities for free
    • Rob brings up impact of Containers on DevOps – the discussion has really gone underground
  • 19:30 Role of Service Registration (Consul & Etcd)
    • Life cycle management of Containers has really changed (Dan)
    • Rob brings up the importance of Service Registration in container management
  • 20:30 2016.Dockercon Docket- what are you expecting?
    • Phil is speaking there on the contribute track & OCI.
    • Rob is doing the hallway track and looking to talk about the “underlay” ops and the competitive space around Docker and Container.
    • Dan will be talking to customers and watching how the community is evolving and experimenting
    • Rob & Dan will be at Open Cloud Technology Summit, June 22 in Seattle

 

5 Key Aspects of High Fidelity DevOps [repost from DevOps.com]

Posted on by
3

For all our cloud enthusiasm, I feel like ops automation is suffering as we increase choice and complexity.  Why is this happening?  It’s about loss of fidelity.

Nearly a year ago, I was inspired by a mention of “Fidelity Gaps” during a Cloud Foundry After Dark session.  With additional advice from DevOps leader Gene Kim, this narrative about the why and how of DevOps Fidelity emerged.

As much as we talk about how we should have shared goals spanning Dev and Ops, it’s not nearly as easy as it sounds. To fuel a DevOps culture, we have to build robust tooling, also.

That means investing up front in five key areas: abstraction, composability, automation, orchestration, and idempotency.

Together, these concepts allow sharing work at every level of the pipeline. Unfortunately, it’s tempting to optimize work at one level and miss the true system bottlenecks.

Creating production-like fidelity for developers is essential: We need it for scale, security and upgrades. It’s not just about sharing effort; it’s about empathy and collaboration.

But even with growing acceptance of DevOps as a cultural movement, I believe deployment disparities are a big unsolved problem. When developers have vastly different working environments from operators, it creates a “fidelity gap” that makes it difficult for the teams to collaborate.

Before we talk about the costs and solutions, let me first share a story from back when I was a bright-eyed OpenStack enthusiast…

Read the Full Article on DevOps.com including my section about Why OpenStack Devstack harms the project and five specific ways to improve DevOps fidelity.

Bugs Bunny, Prince and Enabling True Hybrid Infrastructure Consumption

Posted on by
1

OK- Stay with me on this. I’m drawing parallels again.  🙂

Like many from my generation, my initial exposure to classical music and opera was derived from Bugs Bunny on Saturday mornings (culturally deprived, I know). One of the cartoons I remember well was with Bugs trying to get even with the heavy-set opera singer who disrupts Bugs’ banjo playing. In order to exact his revenge, Bugs infiltrates the opera singer’s concert by impersonating the famous long-hared (hared…get it?) conductor, Leopold Stokowski. He proceeds to force the tenor to hit octaves that structurally compromise the amphitheater and as it crumbles leaves him bruised and battered. Bugs is as always, victorious.

bugs

In examining Bugs’ strategy (let’s assume he actually had one), Bugs took over operations of the orchestra’s musical program to achieve his goal of getting the tenor “in-line” so to speak. As I prepare to head down to the OpenStack Conference in Austin, TX next week, I’m seeing similar patterns develop in the cloud and data center infrastructure space which are very “Bugs/Leopold-like”. With organizations deciding on how to consolidate data centers, containerize apps and move to the cloud, vendors and open source technologies offer value, however true operational, infrastructure and platform independence are not what they appear to be. For example, once you move your apps off the data center to AWS or VMware and then later determine you are paying too much or the workload is no longer is appropriate for the infrastructure, good luck replicating the configuration work done on CloudFormation on another cloud or back in the data center. Same rationale is applicable to other technologies such as converged infrastructure and proprietary private cloud platforms. As the customer, to achieve scale and remove operational pain you must fall in line. That in itself is a big commitment to make in a still-evolving and maturing technology industry and a dynamic business climate.

On an unrelated topic, I was saddened to learn of the passing of Prince this past week. While not a die-hard fan, I liked his music. He was a great composer of songs and had a style all to his own. Beyond his music and sheer talent, I admired his business beliefs and deep desire to maintain creative ownership and control of his music and his brand.

princeDespite his fortune and fame, there was a period in the middle of Prince’s career in which he felt creatively and financially locked-in by the big record companies. Once Prince (and the unpronounceable symbol) broke away from Warner Music, he was able to produce music under his own label. This action enabled him to create music without a major record label dictating when he needed to produce a new album and what it needed to sound like. In addition, he was now able to market his new recordings to the distribution platform that supported his artistic and financial goals. While still having ties to Warner Music, he was no longer bound by their business practices. Along with starting his own music subscription service, Prince cut deals with Arista, Columbia, iTunes and Sony. Prince’s music production had operational portability, business agility and choice (seven Grammy awards and 100 million record sales also help create that kind of leverage.).

While open APIs and containers offer some portability, at RackN we believe they do not offer a completely free market experience to the cloud and infrastructure consumer. If the business decides it is paying too much for AWS, it should not allow for the operational underlay and configuration complexity to lock them to the infrastructure provider. They should be able to transfer their business to Google, Azure, Rackspace or Dreamhost with ease. We believe technologies that create portable, composable operational workflows drive true infrastructure and platform independence and as a benefit, reduces business risk. Choosing a platform and being forced to use it are two very different things.

In conclusion, when considering moving workloads to the cloud, converged infrastructure platforms or using DevOps automation tools, consider how you can achieve programmable operational portability and agility. Think about how you can best absorb new technologies without causing operational disruption in your infrastructure. Furthermore, ensure you can accomplish this in a repeatable, automated fashion. Analyze how you can abstract away complex configurations for security, networking and container orchestration technologies and make them adaptable from one infrastructure platform to another. Attempt to eliminate configuration versioning as much as possible and make upgrades simplistic and automated so your DevOps staff does not have to be experts (they are stressed out enough.).

If you are attending the OpenStack Conference this week, look me up. While I am far from a music expert, i’ll be happy to share with you my insights on how to spot a technology vendor that likes to play a purple guitar as opposed to one that eats carrots and plays the banjo.

-Dan Choquette: Co-Founder, RackN

 

 

 

OpenStack is caught in a snowstorm – it’s status quo for ops implementations to be snowflakes

Posted on by
2

OpenStack got into exactly the place we expected: operations started with fragmented and divergent data centers (aka snowflaked) and OpenStack did nothing to change that. Can we fix that? Yes, but the answer involves relying on Amazon as our benchmark.

In advance of my OpenStack Summit Demo/Presentation (video!) [slides], I’ve spent the last few weeks mapping seven (and counting) OpenStack implementations into the cloud provider subsystem of the Digital Rebar provisioning platform. Before I started working on adding OpenStack integration, RackN already created a hybrid DevOps baseline. We are able to run the same Kubernetes and Docker Swarm provisioning extensions on multiple targets including Amazon, Google, Packet and directly on physical systems (aka metal).

Before we talk about OpenStack challenges, it’s important to understand that data centers and clouds are messy, heterogeneous environments.

These variations are so significant and operationally challenging that they are the fundamental design driver for Digital Rebar. The platform uses a composable operational approach to isolate and then chain automation tasks together. That allows configurations, like networking, from infrastructure specific functions to be passed into common building blocks without user intervention.

Composability is critical because it allows operators to isolate variations into modular pieces and the expose common configuration elements. Since the pattern works successfully for crossing other clouds and metal, I anticipated success with OpenStack.

The challenge is that there is not “one standard OpenStack” implementation.  This issue is well documented under OpenStack as Project Shade.

If you only plan to operate a mono-cloud then these are not concerns; however, everyone I’ve met is using at least AWS and one other cloud. This operational fact means that AWS provides the common service behavior baseline. This is not an API statement – it’s about being able to operate on the systems delivered by the API.

While the OpenStack API worked consistently on each tested cloud (win for DefCore!), it frequently delivered systems that could not be deployed or were unusable for later steps.

While these are not directly OpenStack API concerns, I do believe that additional metadata in the API could help expose material configuration choices. The challenge becomes defining those choices in a reference architecture way. The OpenStack principle of leaving implementation choices open makes it challenging to drive these options to a narrow set of choices. Unfortunately, it means it is difficult to create an intra-OpenStack hybrid automation without hard-coded vendor identities or exploding configuration flags.

As series of individually reasonable options dominoes together to make to these challenges.  These are real issues that I made the integration difficult.

  • No default of externally accessible systems. I have to assign floating IPs (an anti-pattern for individual VMs) or be on the internal networks. No consistent naming pattern for networks, types (flavors) or starting images.  In several cases, the “private” network is the publicly accessible one and the “external” network is visible but unusable.
  • No consistent naming for access user accounts.  If I want to ssh to a system, I have to fail my first login before I learn the right user name.
  • No data to determine which networks provide which functions.  And there’s no metadata about which networks are public or private.  
  • Incomplete post-provisioning processes because they are left open to user customization.

There is a defensible and logical reason for each example above; sadly, those reasons do nothing to make OpenStack more operationally accessible.  While intra-OpenStack interoperability is helpful, I believe that ecosystems and users benefit from Amazon-like behavior.

What should you do?  Help broaden the OpenStack discussions to seek interoperability with the whole cloud ecosystem.

 

At RackN, we will continue to refine and adapt to these variations.  Creating a consistent experience that copes with variability is the raison d’etre for our efforts with Digital Rebar. That means that we ultimately use AWS as the yardstick for configuration of any infrastructure from physical, OpenStack and even Amazon!

 

SIG-ClusterOps: Promote operability and interoperability of Kubernetes clusters

Posted on by
2

Originally posted on Kubernetes Blog.  I wanted to repost here because it’s part of the RackN ongoing efforts to focus on operational and fidelity gap challenges early.  Please join us in this effort!

openWe think Kubernetes is an awesome way to run applications at scale! Unfortunately, there’s a bootstrapping problem: we need good ways to build secure & reliable scale environments around Kubernetes. While some parts of the platform administration leverage the platform (cool!), there are fundamental operational topics that need to be addressed and questions (like upgrade and conformance) that need to be answered.

Enter Cluster Ops SIG – the community members who work under the platform to keep it running.

Our objective for Cluster Ops is to be a person-to-person community first, and a source of opinions, documentation, tests and scripts second. That means we dedicate significant time and attention to simply comparing notes about what is working and discussing real operations. Those interactions give us data to form opinions. It also means we can use real-world experiences to inform the project.

We aim to become the forum for operational review and feedback about the project. For Kubernetes to succeed, operators need to have a significant voice in the project by weekly participation and collecting survey data. We’re not trying to create a single opinion about ops, but we do want to create a coordinated resource for collecting operational feedback for the project. As a single recognized group, operators are more accessible and have a bigger impact.

What about real world deliverables?

We’ve got plans for tangible results too. We’re already driving toward concrete deliverables like reference architectures, tool catalogs, community deployment notes and conformance testing. Cluster Ops wants to become the clearing house for operational resources. We’re going to do it based on real world experience and battle tested deployments.

Connect with us.

Cluster Ops can be hard work – don’t do it alone. We’re here to listen, to help when we can and escalate when we can’t. Join the conversation at:

The Cluster Ops Special Interest Group meets weekly at 13:00PT on Thursdays, you can join us via the video hangout and see latest meeting notes for agendas and topics covered.

AWS Ops patterns set the standard: embrace that and accelerate

Posted on by
1

RackN creates infrastructure agnostic automation so you can run physical and cloud infrastructure with the same elastic operational patterns.  If you want to make infrastructure unimportant then your hybrid DevOps objective is simple:

Create multi-infrastructure Amazon equivalence for ops automation.

Ecosystem View of AWSEven if you are not an AWS fan, they are the universal yardstick (15 minute & 40 minute presos) That goes for other clouds (public and private) and for physical infrastructure too. Their footprint is simply so pervasive that you cannot ignore “works on AWS” as a need even if you don’t need to work on AWS.  Like PCs in the late-80s, we can use vendor competition to create user choice of infrastructure. That requires a baseline for equivalence between the choices. In the 90s, the Windows’ monopoly provided those APIs.

Why should you care about hybrid DevOps? As we increase operational portability, we empower users to make economic choices that foster innovation.  That’s valuable even for AWS locked users.

We’re not talking about “give me a VM” here! The real operational need is to build accessible, interconnected systems – what is sometimes called “the underlay.” It’s more about networking, configuration and credentials than simple compute resources. We need consistent ways to automate systems that can talk to each other and static services, have access to dependency repositories (code, mirrors and container hubs) and can establish trust with other systems and administrators.

These “post” provisioning tasks are sophisticated and complex. They cannot be statically predetermined. They must be handled dynamically based on the actual resource being allocated. Without automation, this process becomes manual, glacial and impossible to maintain. Does that sound like traditional IT?

Side Note on Containers: For many developers, we are adding platforms like Docker, Kubernetes and CloudFoundry, that do these integrations automatically for their part of the application stack. This is a tremendous benefit for their use-cases. Sadly, hiding the problem from one set of users does not eliminate it! The teams implementing and maintaining those platforms still have to deal with underlay complexity.

I am emphatically not looking for AWS API compatibility: we are talking about emulating their service implementation choices.  We have plenty of ways to abstract APIs. Ops is a post-API issue.

In fact, I believe that red herring leads us to a bad place where innovation is locked behind legacy APIs.  Steal APIs where it makes sense, but don’t blindly require them because it’s the layer under them where the real compatibility challenge lurk.  

Side Note on OpenStack APIs (why they diverge): Trying to implement AWS APIs without duplicating all their behaviors is more frustrating than a fresh API without the implied AWS contracts.  This is exactly the problem with OpenStack variation.  The APIs work but there is not a behavior contract behind them.

For example, transitioning to IPv6 is difficult to deliver because Amazon still relies on IPv4. That lack makes it impossible to create hybrid automation that leverages IPv6 because they won’t work on AWS. In my world, we had to disable default use of IPv6 in Digital Rebar when we added AWS. Another example? Amazon’s regional AMI pattern, thankfully, is not replicated by Google; however, their lack means there’s no consistent image naming pattern.  In my experience, a bad pattern is generally better than inconsistent implementations.

As market dominance drives us to benchmark on Amazon, we are stuck with the good, bad and ugly aspects of their service.

For very pragmatic reasons, even AWS automation is highly fragmented. There are a large and shifting number of distinct system identifiers (AMIs, regions, flavors) plus a range of user-configured choices (security groups, keys, networks). Even within a single provider, these options make impossible to maintain a generic automation process.  Since other providers logically model from AWS, we will continue to expect AWS like behaviors from them.  Variation from those norms adds effort.

Failure to follow AWS without clear reason and alternative path is frustrating to users.

Do you agree?  Join us with Digital Rebar creating real a hybrid operations platform.