Well, I'm John Furrier, the founder of SiliconANGLE Media and co-host of theCUBE. We're here in Palo Alto at our studio here. I'm joined with Joseph Jackson, the founder and general partner of OSS Capital, open source software capital OSS stands for. He's also the founder of KubeCon, which now is part of the CNCF. And it's a huge conference around Kubernetes. He's a cloud guy, knows open source, very well respected in the industry and also a great guest friend of theCUBE, a Kube alumni. Joseph, great to see you. Also known as JJ. JJ, good to see you. Thank you for having me on again, John. Hey, great to have you come on. I know we've talked many times on theCUBE, but you've got some exciting news. You've got a new firm, OSS Capital, open source software, not operational support like a telco, but this is an investment opportunity where you're making investments. Congratulations. Thank you. So I know you can't talk about some of the specifics on this fund size, but you are actually going to go out, talk to entrepreneurs, make some equity investments. Yep. Around open source software, what's the thesis? How did you get here? Why did you do it? What's motivating you? What's the thesis? A lot of questions in there. I mean, this is a really profoundly huge year for open source software on a bunch of different levels. I think the biggest kind of thing everyone anchors towards is GitHub being acquired by Microsoft, just a couple of weeks ago, we had the two huge Hadoop vendors joined forces that I think surprised a lot of people. MuleSoft, which is a big open source, middleware company getting acquired by Salesforce, just a year after going public, which is a huge outcome. I think one observation, just to sort of like summarize the year, 2018 is actually starting in January, almost on sort of like a monthly basis. We've observed a major sort of open source software company outcome. And sort of kicking off the year, we had CoreOS getting acquired by Red Hat, Brandon and Alex, the founders over there, built a really interesting company in the Kubernetes ecosystem. And I think in February, Al Fresco, which is an open source content portal, taking privatization sort of outcome from a private equity firm, I believe in March we had Magento getting acquired by Adobe, which is an open source based CMS, PHP CMS. So just a lot of activity for significant outcomes, a multi-billion dollar outcomes of commercial open source companies. So an open source software is something like 20 years old, 20 years in the making. And this year in particular, we've just seen just a huge amount of large scale outcomes that have been many years in the making from companies that have taken lots of venture funding. And in a lot of cases, sort of partially focused funding from different investors that have an affinity for open source software and sort of understand the uniqueness of the open source model when it's applied to business, when it's applied to company building, but more sort of opportunistic and sort of affinity oriented as opposed to a pure focus. And so that's kind of been part of the motivation. I'd say the more authentically kind of compelling motivation for doing this is that it just needs to exist. This is sort of a model that is happening by necessity. We're seeing more and more software companies be open source software companies. So open source first, they're built in a distributed way. They're leveraging engineers and talent around the world, which is part of this open source kind of philosophy. And they are fundamentally kind of commercial open source software companies. And so we felt that if you had a firm, basically designed in a way to exclusively focus on those kinds of companies and where the firm was actually backed and supported by the founders of the largest commercial open source companies in the world before sort of the last decade, that could actually deliver a lot of value. So we've been sort of blogging a little bit about this. You wrote a great post I read about open source monetization. But I think one of the things I'm seeing as well that supports your thesis and I'd like to get your reaction to it because I think this is something that's not really talked about, but open source is still young. I mean, you go back, I remember the days when we used to have to hide in the shadows to get licenses and pirate stuff and do all those crazy stuff. But now it's only a couple of decades away. The leaders that we're investing were usually entrepreneurs that have been successful. The Rob Bearden's, the Amur Awadallah's, the guys who did Spring, all these different open source Linux, obviously a great success story. But there hasn't been any institutional, yeah, you got Benchmark, other things, done some investments. A discipline around open source where open source is now table stakes in all software development. Cloud is scaling, scaling out globally. There's no real, there hasn't been a firm that's been focused on just open source from a commercial while maintaining the purity and ethos of open source. I mean, is that, you agree? 100%. Yeah, that's been the big part of creating the firm is aligning and solving for a pure focused structure. And I think what I'll say abstractly is the sort of venture, venture capital venture style approach to funding enterprise, technology companies, software companies in general has been to kind of find great entrepreneurs in an abstract way that can build great technology companies, can bring them to market, can sell them and can scale them and so on and either create categories or dominate existing categories and disrupt incumbents and so on. And I think while that has worked for quite awhile in the venture industry overall and in the 50, 60 years of the venture industry lots of successful firms, I think what we're starting to see is a necessary shift toward accounting for the fundamental differences of open source software as it relates to new technology getting created and new software companies kind of coming into market. And so we actually fundamentally believe that commercial open source software companies are fundamentally different functionally in almost every way as compared to proprietary closed source software companies of the last 30 years. And the way we've sort of designed our firm and we'll be about 10 people pretty soon, we're just about a month in. So we're growing the team quickly but sort of a small focused team is- A 10 is not focused small. I mean, I know venture firms two billion in management that don't have like more than 20 people. Well, we have portfolio partners that are focused in different functional areas where commercial open source software companies have really fundamental differences. If you were to sort of stack rank by function where commercial open source software companies are really fundamentally different sort of top to bottom, legal would be probably the very top of the list. Right in terms of license, compliance, management, structuring all of the sort of protections and provisions around how intellectual property is actually shipped to and sold to customers. The legal licensing aspects of commercial software licensing. This is quite a polarizing hot topic these days. The second big functional area where we have a portfolio partner focused on this is finance. Finance is another area where commercial open source software companies have to sort of behaviorally orient and apply that function very, very differently as compared to proprietary software companies. And so we're crazy honored and excited to have world experts and very respected leaders in those different areas sort of helping to provide sort of different like sort of pillars of wisdom to our portfolio companies, our portfolio founders in those different functional areas and we provide a really focused kind of structure. Well, I want to ask you that kind of the question that kind of bridges the old way and new way because I'd definitely see you guys definitely being new and different, which is good. Or as Andy Jackson would say, you can be misunderstood for a while but as you become successful, people will start understanding what you do. And that's a great example of Amazon. So but the pattern with success is traditionally the same. You kind of encapsulate the difference between open source old and new and that is you have something of value and you're disrupting the market and collecting rents from it, okay? Or revenue or profit. So that's commercial, that's how businesses run. How are you guys going to disrupt with open source software the next generation value creation? We know how values created certainly in software that open source has shown a path on how to create value in writing software if code is value and functionality is value but to commercialize and create revenue which is people paying some for something. That's a little bit different kind of value extraction from value, the value creation. So open source software can create value in functionality and value product. Now you bring it to the market, you get paid for it.  How are you looking at that? What's the vision of the creation, the extraction of value, who's disrupted? Is it green field, new opportunities?  A lot of nuance and complexity in that question. What I would say is Well, open source is creating products. Well, open source is the basis for creating products in a different kind of way. I'll go back to your question around let's just sort of maybe simplify it as the value creation and the value capture dynamics. We've sort of written a few posts about this and it's subtle but it's easy to understand if you look at it from a fundamental kind of perspective. We actually believe and we'll be publishing research on this and maybe even some sort of more principal scientific perhaps even ways of looking at it and then blog posts and research. But we believe that open source software will always generate or create orders of magnitude more value than any constituent can capture. And that's a fundamental way of looking at it. So if you see how cloud providers are capturing value that open source creates, whether it's elastic search or Postgres or MySQL or Hadoop and then commercial open source software companies that capture value that open source software creates whether it's companies like Confluent around Kafka or Cloudera around Hadoop or Databricks around Apache Spark or whether it's the creators of those projects the creators of Spark and Hadoop and elastic search. Sometimes many of them are the founders of those companies I mentioned some of them sometimes they're not. We just believe regardless of how that sort of value is captured by the cloud providers the commercial vendors or the creators the value created relative to the value captured will always be orders and orders of magnitude greater. And this is expressed in another way which is maybe easier to understand so sort of reinforcing this kind of assertion that there's orders of magnitude value created far greater than what can be captured. If you were to do a survey which we're currently in the process of doing and I'm happy to sort of say that publicly for the first time here of all the commercial open source software companies that have projects with large significant adoption whether say for example it's Docker with millions of users or Apache Hadoop how many Hadoop deployments there are how many customers companies are there running Hadoop deployments or it may be even MySQL how many MySQL installations are there. And then you were to sort of survey those companies and see how many end users are there relative to how many customers are paying for the usage of the projects. It would probably be something like if there were a million users of a given project the company behind that project or the cloud provider or say the end user the developer behind the project is unlikely to capture more than say 1% or a couple of percent of those end users to companies to paying companies to paying customers. And many times that's high. Many times one to 2% is very high. Often what we've seen actually anecdotally and we're doing principled research around this and we'll have data here across a large number of companies many times it's a fraction of 1% which is sort of maybe sometimes 10% of 1% or even a smaller. So the practitioners will be making more money than the actual vendors. Absolutely right. And users and practitioners always stand to benefit far greater because of the fundamental nature of open source. It's permissionless, it's disaggregated the value creation dynamics are untethered and it is fundamentally freely available to use freely available to contribute to with different constraints based on the license. However, all those things are sort of like disaggregating the creation of technology into sort of like an unbounded network. And that's really a really incredible. So first of all, I agree after your premise 100%. We've seen it with theCUBE or videos are free. And that's a good thing. All those things are good. And Dave Vellante says this all the time on theCUBE and we actually pointed this out and called this in the Hadoopika system in 2012. In fact, we actually said that on theCUBE and turned out to be true because look at Hortonworks and CloudDare had to merge because again the market changed very quickly because value was created around them and you had cloud, et cetera. So the question is that changes the valuation mechanisms. So if this is true, which we believe it is to say it is, then the traditional net present value cash flow metric of the value of the firm, not your firm, but like if I'm an open source firm if I'm only one's portion of the extraction I'm a supplier and I'm an enabler the valuation on cash flow might not be as great as the real impact. So the question I have for you have you thought about the valuation because now you're thinking about a bigger construct, community, network effects. These are new dynamics. I don't think anyone's actually crunched the valuation model around this. So if someone knew that say for example an open source project created all this value and they weren't necessarily harvesting it from a cash flow perspective there might be other ways to monetize it. Have you thought about that and what's your reaction to that concept of okay, because capitalism would kind of shake out the system because why would someone be motivated to participate if they're not capturing any value? So if the value shifts are they still going to be able to participate? You follow the logic I'm trying to give you? I definitely do. I think what I would say to that is we expect and we encourage and we will absolutely heavily invest in more business model innovation in the area of open source. So what I mean by that is and it's important to sort of like qualify a few things there. There's a huge amount of polarization and lack of consensus, lack of industry consensus on what it actually means to have or implement an open source based business model. In fact, there's a lot of people who just sort of point blankedly assert that an open source business model does not exist. We believe that many business models for monetizing and commercializing open source exist. We've blogged and written about a few of them. There's services and training and support. There's open core, which is very effective in sort of a spectrum of ways to implement open core. You can have a, you know, around the core, you can have a thin crust or a thick crust. There's SaaS. There are hardware based distribution models, things like source fire and cumulus networks. And there are also network based approaches. So for example, project called storage or storage A being developed and run now by Ben Golub, who's the former CEO of Docker. Cube alumni. Ben's really great, open source veteran. You know, this is a network, kind of decentralized network based approach of, you know, sort of right sizing the production and the consumption of the resource of a storage based open source project in a decentralized network. So those are sort of four, I guess four or five ways of commercializing value. However, however, four or five ways of commercializing value. However, what we believe is that there will be more business model innovation. There will be more developments around how you can better capture more or in different ways the value that open source creates. However, what I'll say though is it is unrealistic to expect two things. It's unrealistic and in fact unfair to expect that any of those constituents will contribute back to open source, proportional to the value that they receive from it or the benefit. And I'm actually paraphrasing Doug Cutting there who tweeted this a couple of years ago, very profoundly deep wise tweet which I very strongly agree with. And it is also unrealistic to expect a second thing which is that any of those constituents can capture a material portion of the value that open source creates which I would assert is many trillions of dollars perhaps tens of trillions of dollars. It's really hard to quantify that. And it's not just dollars in economics sense, it's dollars in productivity, time saved, new markets, new areas and so on. Yeah, I think this is interesting and I think that will be an open book. But I will say that what I've observed in looking through all these CUBE interviews, I think business model innovation absolutely is something that is an IP. We need it. Well, it's now an actual property. The business model isn't, hey, aren't the business school learn this at Babson or Harvard. I learned this business model. We're going to do SaaS, freemium. Okay, I get that. There's going to be very interesting new innovations coming and I think that's the new IP. Because open source, if it's community-based, there's going to be formulas. So that's going to be a wrench. So now let's get back to the actual funding itself. You've got to do an early stage. Can you take us through the approach? We're very focused on early stage. Investing and backing teams that are just sort of welcoming the idea of a commercial entity around their open source project or building a business fundamentally dependent on an open source project or maybe even more than one. And the reason for that is this is really where there's a lot of structural inefficiency in supporting and backing those types of founders. And I think one of the things with Coral West, I know is with that acquisition, they were pure on the open source side, doing a great job. Didn't want to push the business model too hard because the open source, let's face it, you've got people that want to get caught on the business side and get revenue, perverse incentives might come up or fear of incentives that might be different or not aligned. It was a great value for Red Hat. So Red Hat got a steal on that one. But as you go forward, there's going to be certainly a lot more stuff. You're seeing a lot of it now in the CNCF, for instance. I want to get your thoughts on this because being the co-founder of KubeCon and donating it to the CNCF, Kubernetes is the hottest thing on the planet as we talked about many years ago. What's your take on that now? It's the exciting things happening. What is the impact of Kubernetes in your opinion to the world and where do you see that evolving rapidly and where is the focus here that people should be paying attention to? I think that Kubernetes replaces EC2. Kubernetes is a disaggregated API for distributed computing anywhere. And it happens to be portable and able to run on any kind of compute infrastructure, which sort of makes it like a liquid disaggregated EC2 like API, which a lot of people have been sort of chasing and trying to implement for many years with things like OpenStack or Eucalyptus. But interestingly, Kubernetes is sort of the right abstraction for distributed computing because it meets people where they are architecturally. It's sort of aligned with this current movement around distributed systems, first designs, microservices, packaging things in small compartmentalized components. Good for integrating existing stuff. Absolutely, and it's very composable, unopinionated architecturally. So you can sort of take an application and structure it in any given way. And as long as it has the sort of isolation boundary of a container, you can run it on Kubernetes without needing to sort of retrofit the architecture, which is really awesome. I think Kubernetes is a foundational part of the next kind of computing paradigm in the same way that Linux was foundational to the computing paradigm that gave rise to the internet. You know, we had commodity hardware, meeting open source-based sort of cost reduction and efficiency, which really Linux enabled and the movement toward scale out data center infrastructure that supported the internet's sort of maturity and infrastructure. I think we're starting to see the same type of repeat effect thanks to Kubernetes basically being really well received by engineers, by the cloud providers. It's now the universal sort of standard for running container-based applications on the different cloud providers. And I think having the non-technical opinion posture, as you said, or architecture posture, allows it to be compatible with a new kind of heterogeneous. Heterogeneity is critical. Heterogeneity is key because not just within the environment, it's also within each vendor or customer has more heterogeneity. So okay, now that's key. So multi-cloud, I want to get your thoughts on multi-cloud because now this goes into some of the things that might build on top of if Kubernetes continues to go down the road you say it does. Then the next question is stateful applications, service meshes. A lot of buzzwords, a lot of buzzwords in there. I mean, I think like, so stateful applications real because at a certain point in time, you have a maturity curve with critical infrastructure that starts to become appealing for stateful mission-critical storage systems, which is typically where you have all the crown jewels of a given company's infrastructure, whether it's a transactional system or reading and writing core customer, financial service information, whatever it is. So Kubernetes starting to hit this maturity curve where people are migrating really serious mission-critical storage workloads onto that platform. And obviously, we're going to start to see even more critical workloads. We're starting to see edge workloads because Kubernetes is a pretty low footprint system that you can run on edge devices, even run on microcontrollers. We're sort of past the experimental, fun and games with Raspberry Pi sort of towers and people actually legitimately doing real-world edge kind of deployments with Kubernetes. We're absolutely starting to see multi-geo, multi-replication, multi-cloud sort of style architectures becoming real as well because Kubernetes is this API that the industry is agreeing upon sufficiently. We actually have agreement around this sort of surface area for distributed system and style computing that if cloud providers can actually standardize on it in a way that lets application-specific vendors or new types of application deployment models innovate further, then we can really unlock this sort of tight coupling of proprietary services inside cloud providers and disaggregate it, which is really exciting. I forget the Netscape, Jim Barksdale, bundling, unbundling. We're starting to see the unbundling of proprietary cloud computing service APIs, things like Kinesis and ALB and ELB and proprietary storage services and these other sticky services get unbundled because of two big things. Open source, obviously, we have open source alternative data paths and then we have Kubernetes, which allows us to sort of disaggregate things out pretty easily. I want to get your thoughts, one final concept before we break because I was having a private conversation with three people besides myself, a big time CIO of a company that if I said the name, everyone would go, oh my God, that guy's huge. He's seen it all going back many, many ways. Currently, he's done a lot of innovation. A hardcore network chip guy who knows networking, old school infrastructure and then a cloud native application founder who knows a lot about software development and is state of the art cloud native. So cloud native, all experience, old school, kind of about my age. A cloud native app developer, it's big time CIO and a chip networking kind of infrastructure guy. And we're talking, and one thing that came out, I want to get your thoughts on this. He says, so what's going on with DevOps? How do you see this service mesh as a state for web, top of the stack, no stacks, horizontally scalable and the comment that came out was, storage and networking have had this relationship with everything since day one. Network moves a packet from point A to point B and nothing happens in between, maybe some inspection and storage goes from here, now to then, as you store it. He goes, that premise moves up the stack, so then the cloud native guy goes, well that's what's happening up at the top. There's a lot of moving things around workloads and or services, provisioning services and then from here, from now to then, state, real time. And what dawned on the next conversation the CIO goes, well this is exactly our challenge. We have under the hood, infrastructure being programmable. My phone's calling me, programmable phone. So you got the programmable at the top of the stack too. So the CIO said, that's exactly the problem we're trying to solve, we're trying to solve some of these network storage concepts now at an application level, your thoughts to that. Well I think if I could tease apart everything you just said, which is a profound synthesis of a lot of different things, I think we've started to see application logic leak out of application code itself into dedicated layers that are really good at doing one specific thing. And so traditionally we had some crud style kind of behavioral semantics implemented around business logic. And then inside of that you also had libraries for doing connectivity and lookups and service discovery and locking and key management and encryption and coordination with other types of applications and all that stuff was sort of like shoved into the single big application binary. And now we're starting to see all of those like language, runtime specific parts of application code sort of crack or leak out into these dedicated, highly scalable, UNIX philosophy oriented sort of like layers. So things like Envoy are really just built for the sort of nervous system layer of kind of application communication fabric up and down the layer two through layer seven sort of protocol transport stack which is really profound. We're seeing things like Vault from Hashicorp handle secure key storage persistence of application authentication, authorization, metadata and information to sort of access different systems and endpoints. And that's a dedicated sort of stateful layer that you can sort of fragment out and delegate sort of application specific functionality to which is really great for scalability reasons and on and on and on. And so we've started to see that and I think one way of looking at that is it's a cycle. It's the sort of bundling and unbundling aspect. The sort of micro services. Or the brand new level of services are getting really low level. Yeah, it's a sort of like bundling, unbundling and so we've got all this unbundling happening out of application code to these dedicated layers. The bundling back may happen. I've actually seen a few sort of Bay Area companies go like we're going back to the monolith because it actually gives us lots of efficiencies and things that we thought were trade-offs before. We're actually comfortable with a big monorepo and one or two core languages and we're going to like build everything into these big binaries and everyone's going to sort of live in the same source code repository and break things out through folders or whatever. I mean there's a lot of really interesting things. I don't want to say we're sort of clear on where this bundling, unbundling is happening but I do think that there's a lot of unbundling happening right now. And there's a lot of opportunity there. And the open source obviously driving it. So final question for you. How many deals have you done? Can you talk a little bit about the firm? And exciting things and plans that you have going forward. Yeah, we're going to be making a lot of announcements over the next few months. And we're, I guess, extremely thrilled. I don't want to say overwhelmed because we're able to handle all of the volume and inquiries and inbound interest. We're really, really honored and thrilled by the reception over the last couple of weeks from announcing the firm on the 1st of October sort of before the Hortonworks Clutter Merger the JFrog funding announcement that week, the Elastic IPO. Just a lot of really awesome things happened that week. It was obviously before Microsoft open sourced all their patents. We'll be announcing more investments that we've made. We announced our first one on the 1st of October as well with the announcement of the firm. We've made a good number of investments. We're not able to talk too much about our first sort of initiative but you'll hear more about that in the near future. Well, we're excited. I think it's the timing's perfect. I know you've been working on this kind of vision for a while and I think it's a really great timing. Congratulations, JJ. Thank you so much. Thanks so much for having me on. Joseph Jackson, also known as JJ, founder and general partner of OSS Capital, open source software capital. Co-founder of KubeCon, which is now part of the CNCF. Real great player in the community and the ecosystem. Great to have him on theCUBE. Thanks for coming in. I'm John Furrier. Thanks for watching. Thanks, John.


Thank you. I'd like to start off with a little confession. I'm completely unqualified to give this talk. I work as a technical writer in Google's Zurich office, and I'm the executive VP at the Apache Software Foundation. I have absolutely no experience in crisis management or disaster relief. But what I do have is a passion for open source software and a passion for saving the world. When the CFP opened for this mini-con, I proposed the talk because I wanted to share those passions with these attendees. Many of the people in this room are people I've followed and admired for many years, people who've encouraged me and people who've inspired me. And these people have made me believe that I can make a difference in the world. So I was looking forward to meeting those people in person and telling them a little bit about the things I care about. I expected to be standing in front of a room with a few of my friends speaking about something I'm not really an expert in, and that was going to be fine. What I didn't expect was to be sitting in my apartment in Zurich two weeks ago with my talk written in my bags pretty much packed, looking at Google Maps imagery and terrain maps for this building and trying to work out how far the water could rise before my adopted Australian grandparents were getting their feet wet. Happily, I got a phone call late that night from my mother to say that they'd evacuated to Fiona's house and all was well. By the time I made it to Melbourne, two of the lads had made it back to the unit in kayaks at low tide. The water had made it up to the front door and stopped. So they were very lucky. It was several days before it occurred to me that I was now planning to speak about open-source crisis management and disaster relief software at an open-source conference in Queensland. It was, I will give you a disaster that from an information strategy perspective was very successfully managed, but nonetheless. I looked up the Queensland flood map again. I clicked through the ABC emergency site. Did a quick search. Ushahidi, awesome. Okay, this is software I know about. This is software that I'm prepared to talk about. So I was delighted to see that it was software I knew, open-source software, and it was already, more or less, in my slides. But I'll admit I was and remain a little bit daunted about doing this talk right here and now. So for those of you who came to Linus Confey to hear experts speaking on topics they know inside out, I suggest you check out Brianna's talk or come back in half an hour for Arianna's talk. If you'd like to stay and hear what I know, please know that we have plenty of time and I'd love your participation. If you have something to add about the projects I'm talking about, particularly if you know anything about the specific deployments here in Queensland, I'd love you to pipe up when we get to that. And finally, if the last thing you want to hear about this week is disaster management, I totally understand, and I just ask you to be patient with me for a few minutes. Open-source software is saving the world in more ways than you might know about, and I will be talking about more than just crisis relief, I promise.  I suppose first of all we should start with my family.  She works in the community where I grew up and her job is all about bringing life into the world. My father, for his part, runs one of the largest and busiest emergency departments in Ireland, serving a population with major challenges, poor, elderly, immigrants, a lot of people with a lot of social problems. And his job is about saving lives, quite literally on a daily basis. So that was kind of a high bar to match. But it did mean that as I was growing up, I was always pretty clear on what I wanted to do. It was only one choice, really. I wanted a job that would let me save lives. Sadly, I'm actually really squeamish. So Metsu was not going to work out. So I gave up on that idea and I did a degree in computational linguistics, which is all about language and computers and communication and how all of these things connect together. And somewhere along the way I started matching up the technology and the communication and I got involved in documenting the Apache web server. And over the years, I've come to realize that there are many ways of saving the world. Technology, in general, and open source software, in particular, offers so many possibilities. So since I have you all here, I'm going to take some time to talk to you about just a few of the open source projects that I'm particularly fond of that are dedicated to saving lives and making the world a better place. How many of you remember where you were on St. Stephen's Day in 2004? It's a while ago now, but for a quarter of a million people, that was, sadly, their last day. About a quarter of a million people lost their lives after an earthquake off Sumatra triggered a tsunami that just devastated coastal communities across the Indian Ocean, 14 different countries. And perhaps worse than the immediate death toll were the about two million people missing, injured, displaced, no longer had anywhere to live. And we're talking, by and large, about the poorest of the poor here. Per capita, by far the worst hit country was Sri Lanka, which is a truly beautiful island nation, famous for its lush tropical landscapes and its delicious teas. Not Queensland. In a crisis situation, hours and days mean lives saved and lost. And duplicating effort often means that some critical areas get missed out. No matter how many or few resources you have, whether it's developed world, relatively rich country, or whether it is the poorest of the poor, coordinating your resources is vital to maximizing the impact of whatever it is you're doing. And the Sri Lankans quickly realized that the problems they faced would be better tackled using software than an old fashioned pens and sticky notes approach. So they contacted the US Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, assuming that having dealt with emergencies and so on for many decades, that they would have something that would help solve these common problems. Facilitating the search for missing persons, coordinating aid and volunteer management, looking after victim tracking through refugee and displaced persons camps and so on. No, no, the only software FEMA had was for cutting checks to those who needed compensation. Now, one thing you wouldn't necessarily know about Sri Lanka if you stuck to reading the tourist guides is that they actually have a very strong tradition of free and open-source software. So it was no surprise, really, that when technology was needed to help manage this massive relief effort, the Sri Lankans turned straight to open-source. And so, under the auspices of the Lanka Software Foundation, open-source developers, primarily in Sri Lanka, but also around the world, worked literally day and night, 24 hours, to produce the first release of what's now known as the Sahana Project, which was almost immediately adopted by the government and went into production within about a week. So the Sahana Project is all about enabling a cohesive, coherent disaster response between multiple groups and agencies and bringing everyone together to help those who need it most. Of course, to refer to Sahana as a piece of software is kind of an oversimplification. In reality, Sahana now embraces three distinct projects. Lion is the easy one to explain. It's the localization work that ensures that everything else can quickly and easily be pieced together and thrown out there wherever it's needed because you usually don't have a whole heap of warning. Agastiy is the original PHP-based emergency management software and Eden is a broader system based on a Python port of Agastiy, but also encompassing some more general humanitarian assistance and disaster response functionality. And I'll talk a little bit about the difference between those things in a moment. But what really strikes me about this is can you imagine a commercial company that can do the same, that could divert literally thousands of hours of engineering work at a moment's notice to develop a modular, reusable piece of software that was ready to be deployed a week later? I mean, I'm all for agile, but that's pretty good. But all this was undertaken by volunteers and the resulting software has been used literally across the globe from Haiti to Peru, translated into more than a dozen languages, ready and waiting for wherever it's needed next. And for me, that's really just the power of open source. Going back to humanitarian assistance, emergency management and disaster response, they do sound similar and a lot of the software requirements are pretty much the same for all of these. So please excuse me if I use these terms interchangeably from a software point of view, sometimes they are. But more generally, humanitarian assistance typically describes the sort of longer term relief work that's required in various places around the globe, usually in chronic settings where the challenges faced just have to be addressed with continued ongoing work. There's no band aid that's gonna sort out these problems. The work is usually well understood. The requirements are clear, even if they're a little complex and the pace is slower. It's necessarily slower because it's so much more sustained than during a crisis. Emergency management on the other end of the scale is immediate and brief. Speed is of the essence. Communication is often nigh impossible. Even in the developed world where we have a lot, we have N plus two, backups to backups to backups. It's very easy for phone networks to go out or simply to get saturated by the number of people trying to stay in contact. And it's the most basic things that are missing. The human nature is that we want to do something at this stage. People want to go there to help, to do whatever is needed. But the problem is the coordinating those people is absolutely critical. It's very easy for those rescuers to become an additional burden on a system that simply can't manage with what it's already got. And so there's a combination of telling people to just calm down and slow down a little bit but also coordinating what you have and what you need. Taking Haiti's earthquake last year as an example, the emergency management required there was focused on finding survivors, digging out people who were still alive, were talking still in the first few days, stabilizing the casualties, working to reestablish the basic infrastructure. And when I say basic infrastructure, we're talking like running water. Sometimes shelter, but really the truly, these are the things you cannot live without. Sanitation, food and water supplies. And this phase rarely lasts more than a few weeks after a natural disaster. Although it can be more prolonged when you've got war or conflict going on. So somewhere in between these, and if we go back to Haiti still going on more than a year later, is disaster response. It's usually more chaotic and immediate than humanitarian assistance. You don't have that sense of, okay, here's what we need to do, here's how we're going to do it. Here are our ongoing donors and so on. And it's often broader based than the initial emergency management. Sanitation can remain an issue. Basic infrastructure, medical care, these things need to all be brought back online. And what's needed at this stage is still an organized, coordinated response. But by now, usually it's easier to manage volunteers coming in and hopefully a willing pair of hands is more of an asset than a liability. Emergency management and disaster response were really the topics of the hour in Kenya as 2007 turned into 2008. Some of you may have heard earlier today about openness in the public sector from opening up government data to open democracy. But when the Kenyan presidential elections declared victory for the incumbent against a backdrop of manipulation, accusations of intimidation, and in fact the opposition leaders claims that he had won. An open source project sprung up and helped to save lives as those government processes were breaking down. In the month of followed the elections, as many as a thousand people lost their lives as riots and violence broke out. And it could easily have been many more if it weren't for the work of Ori O'Colo, a Kenyan blogger with a background in law and activism, who suggested and drove through developing a website that would track eyewitness reports of violence and of areas that were in need of aid. Within days, developers from Africa, from the US and further afield, had set up a site that would let the public submit reports of riots, lootings, violence, intimidation, either by SMS or online. Online seems like a very easy and natural way of doing things for us. But you'll find particularly in Africa, it's much more likely that people will have access to a cell phone than to any kind of a computer. Volunteers would then attempt to verify the reports that came in, either with local media, with non-governmental organizations that were on the ground in those areas. And the incidents, both reported and verified, could be displayed on a map. Shortly thereafter, the site was expanded, enabling people not only to report ongoing violence, but also to request aid as it was needed. Those requests could of course be verified, mapped and tracked. And the site was eventually even extended to be able to accept donations from abroad. Kenya, of course, having a pretty large diaspora. So Ushahidi was the name given to the software that powered all of this. It's a Swahili word that means testimony or witness. And as with Sahana, although this software was developed to meet a specific local need, as open source software took on a life of its own. Just weeks after it had been rolled out for the Kenyan troubles, the same software was used to create a site tracking anti-immigrant violence in South Africa. It's since been used to track everything from stocks of vital drugs in pharmacies across East Africa to blocked roads after snowstorms in North America. From deciding where to send volunteers to help with rebuilding after wildfires in Russia, to election monitoring in Mexico and India. Ushahidi has really, truly gone global. And if that website looks strangely familiar, that's because it's been used here too. It was literally hours after the flash floods toured through Toowoomba before ABC launched the Queensland flood crisis map. I've mentioned time spans a few times here. Days after the tsunami hit Sri Lanka, Sahana was up and running. Days after the Kenyan election crisis, the original version of Ushahidi was launched. And here truly it was a matter of hours. It was less than a day that a new instance of that existing ecosystem was deployed. In emergency management, as you can imagine, time is of the essence. And using open source software facilitates that in a number of ways. For a start, bypassing management approval is a whole lot easier when you don't have to pay thousands of dollars to license or buy your software. But way more importantly, when you use open source software, you have a community of talented, interested volunteers who can help you and who provide follow the sun coverage as people on one continent go to sleep, people on the next continent are waking up. And of course, the sheer number of people willing to contribute means that no matter when a crisis hits, Stephens' day, no problem. There'll be somebody available to get things up and running. There's no company, party, or national holiday that can take it out. But time is not the only factor in getting things up and running. Accurate information is also vitally important. And to me, that's one of the key strengths of Ushahili. In the early days, ABC saw many reports about road closures, flooded streets, evacuation centers, sandbagging locations, so on. But as time moved on and the disaster moved into more of a recovery phase, the map has started to collect reports of volunteers needed, pets lost and found, locations for bottled water drops, bulk bins, and public health information from disease risks to vaccinations. And each of these reports can, if necessary, be verified. Obviously, local authorities don't need to confirm who has space for a few extra pets when a shelter needs to be evacuated. But knowing which school building still has place for evacuees and which health centers are open and providing vaccines builds public confidence and helps keep that infrastructure ticking over. And so you can see pretty easily on the reports which have been verified. And once you click through, you can see who they've been verified by and then which are simply unverified. Since it was first developed, Ushahili has also grown. It's no longer merely a reporting and mapping website, but it contains a whole suite of tools that can be used to gather data from almost any source. And in fact, part of the secret to how quickly ABC had this up and running lies in this. Because it turns out before the rain started falling on Queensland, they had already been piloting it. For Feral Month, the ABC were asking Australians to report any feral animals they saw. And they described this as a citizen science experiment as part of an ongoing investigation into crowdsourcing and social media and how they contribute to emergency management, major event reportage and information gathering. So they already had a deployment up and running. It was simply a matter of just customizing it a little bit and making it specific to the floods. But some of the tools that they were piloting and testing out there are SMS Sync, Sweeper and Swift River. SMS Sync allows you to turn any Android phone into a cheap SMS gateway. So rather than having the time and expense of trying to set up a short code or a commercial gateway, you simply install this application on your Android, anybody can text you, and a script passes these messages to the Ushahiti deployment. You can also set up filters and so on so that it only passes the messages you're interested in. Sweeper, which is the next part of the tool chain, uses natural language processing and Yahoo's Placemaker API to curate the tweets and map them as they come in, which frees up volunteers who otherwise might be spending time and effort on doing this, trying to wade through just the vast quantity of data that's generated. And finally, the Swift River API also helps to get through all of that data by deduplicating the stream, trying to make sure that noise is kept to a minimum and that signal is boosted. In both the Feral Month experiment and the Queensland Floods deployment, open source software made massive amounts of crowdsourced data completely awesome and useful. But where did that data come from? By and large, it came from the social networks and the social technologies that we're already using. Technology facilitates and exposes the connections that we already have and it enables some amazing possibilities simply by connecting people quickly and efficiently. Twitter in particular came into its own during the floods, but Facebook and even YouTube were credited with helping to keep information flowing. All of these technologies were successfully used not only by individuals to connect those who needed help with others who could provide it, but also by official bodies, most notably the Queensland Police, to respond to the public, to bust the myths that were circulating and to give people the information that they needed to stay safe and well. As Kim Charlton, Director of Media Affairs for the Queensland Police, said of Twitter and Facebook, rather than us having to create a website and build an audience, we're going to where the people already are. And when you're dealing with a crisis situation, that's really the last word, going to where the people already are. Because somebody who's evacuated, maybe to a friend, maybe to a shelter, they don't have all of their stuff at home, they're not looking online particularly, they might be getting the tweets coming in on their phone or whatever, but that's really all they've got. And so it's a matter of getting the information to them rather than asking them to come to the information. Now, I promised I wouldn't talk about disasters all day long, but what all of the software we've talked about so far has in common is the assumption that the users have access to computers and the internet. Even with Ushahili in Kenya, where you can text in your reports, the assumption to see the maps is that you're looking at a computer. So there's a disconnect between those using the software as well and those who are being helped by it. The people using the software, the crisis management agencies, maybe it's ABC, maybe it's governmental, whoever it is. I'd like to talk now about some open source software and in fact, open source software and hardware that's saving the world, starting with people who don't have those things that many of us in the room would consider pretty much essential. Globally, more than 776 million adults do not have even the most basic literacy skills. That's more than 36 times the population of Australia. If it were a country, it would be the third largest in the world after India and China and it would be more than twice the size of the USA. As it is, it's one in every five adults globally. And of course, it's not as simple as looking at the two people to the left of you and the two people to the right of you. Poor literacy is a problem of opportunity, not of intelligence. And like so many crises, literacy problems disproportionately affect the poor of this world. Litteracy can impair people's ability to obtain or transmit vital information about their health, their livelihood, tools they use, the challenges they face. Even in the developed world, literacy is truly a matter of life or death. For example, not being able to read your prescription bottle or your hospital forms, truly can kill. A study at the Feinberg School of Medicine, a university hospital based in Chicago, showed that older people with inadequate literacy skills had a 50% higher mortality rate than their literate counterparts. In fact, after smoking, low literacy was the number one predictor of mortality. In the developing world, not being able to read seed packets or fertilizer instructions limits crop yields, costs lives. Not being able to read ballot papers or election manifestos, limits full participation in society. Not being able to read how much you're owed and how much you've been paid, opens doors to serious corruption and further exploitation of those who are already the poorest of the poor. Literacy Bridge is an organization that seeks to combat these disadvantages. By giving communities in the developing world the tools that they need to grow literacy on their own and, more importantly, to obtain and transmit information in immediately accessible, environmentally and culturally appropriate and locally relevant ways. So they're trying to build literacy but they're also spreading this information while they're on that path. The Literacy Bridge team have built a device called the Talking Book. It's designed specifically for people who cannot read and who live without electricity. It's the world's most affordable and durable audio device and it has some amazing features I'll talk about in just a moment. But in the words of the Literacy Bridge team, it's like a small touchpad computer that enables local experts to spread information to the most inaccessible communities on earth. Before the Talking Book came along, NGOs in places like Ghana would teach a local volunteer about topics from agriculture to education, politics to health. Those experts would get in trucks on motorbikes or go out on foot visiting villages and rural communities. They would often quite literally stand in the shade of a tree and shout out what they knew.   You don't get a second chance. And even in optimal situation, if you're there, you hear it, you get it, it's all good, there's kind of only so much information. A guy standing in the back of a pickup or under a tree can transmit while you're sitting waiting for him. Now, field partners can record information directly onto a Talking Book. They distribute these devices to willing participants and they give a short demonstration on how to use them. The audio menus are easy to navigate by touch and users can repeat the information they're interested in as often as they need to. They can play it back for family and friends or pass the book on to someone else. In fact, in pilots, each Talking Book was shared naturally between many families. Anyone can record new audio onto the Talking Book to expand on existing ideas, share new information, give feedback to the organization providing the devices or simply to tell their story. And most impressively, two Talking Books can be connected to each other to share audio between them so that new information, updates, local translations can be added and passed on without any further intervention. And a lot of a thousand of these costs on the order of five or six thousand US dollars. So they're basically a five dollar iPod. Never mind your hundred dollars for an OLPC. The people that these are going to could never afford that. Five dollars, just about doable. For use in the classroom or for learners, you can adjust the speed of the audio. And audio links within the files can prompt the user to listen to definitions, answer questions and so on and so forth. That's pretty good for five dollars. And of course, it's all open, all powered by a locally available D-cell battery and freely available open source software. I mentioned a pilot program. Oh, hang on, this clicker has gone mad. Sorry, excuse me. Let's go back. So I mentioned a pilot program a few minutes ago in which, thank you. No, okay, let's just give it one second. Let's see if we can. Talking books, 21 talking books were sent out to a village of a hundred people. And, okay, we'll leave the slides for now. Where non-users saw crop yields drop by 5% from the previous year, farmers who had access to a talking book saw crop yields increase by 48%. That's a return on investment of more than 300% in the first year. And the talking books can be used again and again. And of course, they can be used to provide much more than agricultural information. More than 91% of those who had access to talking books applied both new health practices and new agricultural practices in their households. And local women regularly reported listening to the books with their children. Sorry. Can someone just come up and tell that to go away? Which is a key ingredient in bringing change to the developing world where it's been repeatedly shown that educating women proves more effective than any other education provision in bringing about change. As you can see, if I can get my slides up, many farmers chose to, okay, just exit in the corner. Many farmers chose to apply the agricultural advice only on a portion of their land. When you're living in Ghana, when you're a poor subsistence farmer in Ghana, you simply can't afford to take good advice on the risk that it will all go horribly wrong. Yeah, just done, yeah, or exit. I would really like to show you this image if I can, because I think it really speaks to the whole thing. No, okay, oh well. What I can do, perhaps, just drag this over. That's showing you the difference between part of the field planted using the traditional methods and part of the field planted using the methods advocated by the talking book. I think it's pretty awesome. I think I'm really awesome, sorry. No, that's quite all right. Do you know what the differences was with extra fertilizer or whatever?  So it was literally, it was just in how you planted, pretty much. It's really, really simple information, but it's just trying to get that information out. So I've told you about some of the projects that I love that are dedicated to saving lives, but open source software is saving the world in a much wider variety of, and much more subtle ways as well. So let me just return to the mundane side of things for a few minutes. By a series of happy accidents, while I was in university, I started getting involved with open source software, and worked on contributing documentation to the Apache web server while I was there. I'm sure most of you've heard of that web server. It started to evolve out of NCSA's web server in the mid 90s, after one of the principal developers left there. People who relied on that software to run their sites got together and started sharing the work that they had been doing to keep things up and running. Those people eventually became the Apache Group and later the Apache Software Foundation. But that's kind of enough history. There's another aspect of the Apache web server that we don't always think about. It's basically saving the world by proxy. As we speak, charities around the world are informing the public, they're soliciting donations, they're getting volunteers, and they're carrying out their missions online. And many, many organizations from Amnesty International to Médecins Sans Frontiers, Save the Children to UNICEF, are all able to do this because that Apache Group wrote a web server, published it in a free and open way. These organizations have accessed hundreds of thousands of hours of engineering time for free. It doesn't cost them a cent. And what's more, if the software doesn't do what they want it to do, it's pretty easy to get someone to tweak it, adapt it, add onto it so that it does do what they need. And if they need something to keep their website in order once it's up and running, how about Drupal? If they want to keep track of donors and volunteers, Civi CRM. There's basically nothing you cannot do with open source software once you start looking. It's blissfully simple, really. Open source is a common good. Each of us receives far more from it than we put in. No one can take away from any of us the contributions that we've made, the work that we've created, and yet we can all take from what others have done. And we can use that, we can build on it, we can adapt it, we can do whatever we like with it. And that's the wonder of open source software. It's the joy of open source software. It's the strength of open source software. And it is how open source software from crisis management tools to audio players to web servers can and will and must save the world. Thank you.


The importance of network performance measurement cannot be overstated, because it is something which is related to ensuring that a certain quality of service is provided to the users who are the customers or the subscribers of a certain network provider and a certain service provider. NGN looks at it very critically and there are certain network elements and functional entities which together work to implement the performance measurements. The management of performance measurement is a very crucial aspect that needs to be understood in detail from the perspective of NGNs. So we'd look at what are the service delivery scopes, because these scopes are going to determine the complexity of performance measurement and managing it. Then we'd look at the network elements partitioned in the form of segments and we'd look at the overall management model. It is now obvious that performance measurement in NGNs is very crucial to provide quality of service based services to the end users. In terms of the functional entities which are required to perform these measurements, there is NGN recommendation that comprises three functional entities. Starting from the bottom, going to the top in the form of a hierarchical tree, there is a functional entity known as the performance measurement execution functional entity. It means this is the functional entity that actually implements the performance measurement. Then we have the whatever measurements are made are sent to some kind of processing server. It is again another functional entity. So it is the performance measurement processing functional entity. So whatever is processed and the conclusions made are shared with the network administrators and with the policy makers through a functional entity which is hierarchically at the top. This is the performance measurement reporting functional entity. So we can think about the root node as PMR. Then we have multiple PMPs and then we have the PMEs at the leaf nodes. The management of performance measurement is something that has to be dealt with very wisely because it is going to have a toll on the overall network traffic. Usually the network traffic is dedicated or it is normally assumed to be solely for the end users. But from the operational management viewpoint, these measurements are going to have their own toll. So some kind of a wise organization and management for these measurements is essential. So what the NGN community does is they actually have thought about segmenting or partitioning the end to end network between two user terminal equipments in the form of network segments. Each segment can be assigned to an independent administrative authority, a different network manager who is responsible for maintaining quality of service. This quality of service provisioning through the performance measurement is now in the context of basically getting the active logs of the network. So in order to do that, the live performance is measured through some kind of query or probing mechanism. So active probe is initiated and then live measurements are made and after this process is done to the satisfaction, then this probe is terminated. So this sending out probes and receiving the responses to these probes has an overhead. Sometimes in certain situations for certain users and certain traffic types, this kind of interventional probing is not recommended. In that case, some passive measurements can be used. Passive measurements are actually non-invasive and the traffic which is users traffic is logged in terms of their headers and the active routing tables are logged and copied for subsequent usage by the functional entities that we have already seen. So correspondingly, when we look at the performance measurements, these performance measurements would have their scope corresponding to the scope of the service for which we are interested in collecting these measurements. So the services can be thought to be delivered to a certain scope. Now the innermost scope is basically edge-to-edge and the outermost or the end-to-end is the terminal equipment to terminal equipment. So the edge-to-edge service scope is where the services extend to the network provider's edge. In this case, the network provider edge is a gateway. So when the services are confined up to the gateways, it means that the network measurements would be correspondingly measuring the performance of the service provisioning only to this extent. Then we have site-to-site. Site-to-site actually means the site where the user is connecting to the network through the connectivity service network. So the customer premises network which is connecting to the connectivity service network is the scope for site-to-site. For the terminal equipment to terminal equipment, the services actually extend from the customer premises network to the customer equipment. In that case, if we are looking at the service delivery from TE to TE, in other words, we are looking at the end-to-end scenario. That includes site-to-site and edge-to-edge. So it reflects the aggregated performance of all these segments combined. Let's look at the seemingly complex but very insightful illustration of the overall model for performance measurement. Here we see that we have the customer premises network at the bottom. We have CP&A on the left-hand side, CP&B. Then we have customer premises network connecting to the access network through the edge. It is known as the connectivity service network. The access network is then connected to the core network through its own gateway. Then we have the transit network or the intermediate network that can connect multiple cores. So we can actually think about we are going to have customer premises network for sure. We would have one or more access networks. We could have one or more core networks. We could have zero or more transit networks. Now if you continue looking at here, you would notice that the scope of service delivery is shown here as well. For instance, we have the TE to TE scope, which is the end-to-end scope. Then we have the site-to-site scope that is you can see here we have edge-to-edge. And then we have the last one that we can see the overall transit segment. So we have multiple scopes. You can see here that these scopes correspond to the connectivity between the terminal equipment and the networks which provide service to it in order to reach the other terminal equipment. You can see here there is something interesting you see here known as demarcation point. So we will talk about demarcation point, what is it and how it can be used as a reference point where these measurements can be made. The segments actually are nothing but the portions of the end-to-end network which is split into tangible and administratively provisionable networks, subnets. So we can say that segments in NGN actually include all the access technologies including DSL, Ethernet, SDH, PDH, these lines, whatever. These segments actually could be the ingress or egress access core transit etc. Now you can actually see I didn't comment on it back then but when we have the calling party and the call party. From the calling party perspective we are talking about the egress where the request is being sent out and the calling party is where the traffic is coming in so it is the ingress segment. So what are these demarcation points? A demarcation as the name implies is to identify or label or earmark something. These are basically the points which are the network elements which are located on the edge of the connectivity of different networks. For instance if we have an edge node in the access network which is connecting this access network to the core then this particular device, a network element like a switch or a router is going to be the demarcation point. The demarcation point is place where the measurement can be made. So usually the demarcation points are measured in pairs. So we have the ingress demarcation point and we have the egress demarcation point and we look at the scope of service from the point of view of the ingress and egress demarcation point according to the scope.


Subtraction, that is our math lesson for today. There are three birds on a branch of a tree. If one bird flies away, how many birds are left on the branch? For us to find the answer, we shall do subtraction. There are three birds on the branch of the tree. One flies away. So we shall subtract one from three. And the answer is two. Three minus one equals two. That is a subtraction sentence. Or we can say three take away one equals two. Three minus one equals two is a subtraction sentence. Three is the minimum, the number from which we subtract. One is the subtrend, the number which we subtract or take away. And two is the difference, the answer in subtraction. Let's try to do some subtraction drills. Five minus two equals three cameras, right? One minus three equals four guitars, six minus one equals five keys, three minus three equals zero diamonds, five minus zero equals five bells, correct? So that is subtraction. I hope you learned a lot today. Have a nice day children.


Mother films herself sleeping, finds out why she's always exhausted. All parents can agree that caring for kids is exhausting. A mother trying to get her baby sleep during the night knows it will be a challenging task. One such mom was the one in our story, who kept waking up exhausted in the morning. To get to the bottom of this mystery, she set up a camera and got ready for a good night's sleep. The next day as she saw the footage, everything was clear enough. The mother saw the video and realized this had been happening for quite some time. A bit amused by how it all looked like, she decided to share her experience. She shared a time-lapse video of her night as a mother and this is the reality for all the parents out there. Next time when you see parents looking exhausting, think of this video. Melanie Darnell has three kids and she's quite popular on Instagram. She is a fitness blogger and a vegan. Melanie is from Los Angeles and has stunned an entire world even before sharing the video.  With 100k followers on Instagram, Melanie's followers began growing so fast last year after sharing her time-lapse video. While this mom led a healthy lifestyle, she noticed that in the morning she was fatigued. She thought it was strange, but after seeing the video by herself, it all came back to her. Anyone who exercises and has an active day would fall asleep very fast at night. Melanie used to go to sleep before 11pm. However, she didn't get enough rest and deep sleep. To learn what made her feel so exhausted, she started an experiment one night. When people saw her video, they were stunned to see what was really going on during the night. Melanie took one of her cameras and taped it to the ceiling at a good angle. With night mode activated, the camera would record whatever happened during the night. She was curious to see how much sleep she was getting, so this was the best idea she could come up with. Melanie knew her kids would sometimes wake her up in the night, but she had no idea how little sleep she was actually getting. No wonder that when afternoon naps came, she wanted to jump back into bed with the kids. So this is how the nightmarish week started. My husband is traveling for work. My 10-month-old still isn't sleeping through the night and my two-year has an ear infection, Melanie said. This was a good time to see if the camera experiment would work. Some of the moments were hilarious, while others really hit home. For my personal curiosity of how much sleep I have actually been getting, I duck-taped our nest cam to the ceiling, she wrote in the video description. She would soon find out exactly how many hours a night she was up and caring for her babies. Her brutally honest video got viral in just a few days. Melanie added that, what you are about to witness is real video footage of how my night went. When she reviewed the footage the next morning, she wasn't even surprised that she felt tired. Here's how her night went. The mom falls asleep at 10 p.m. and we can see on the footage that she is sleeping so peacefully. However, that's only for an hour. She wakes up and hears her 10-month-old son Milo crying. When the, party, begins. At 11.20, Melanie comes back to bed with Milo. Apparently, Milo thinks it's lunchtime. The baby is now in bed and Melanie nurses him until he falls asleep. Then, they begin tossing and turning for a while. When. They finally seem to have found the perfect spot to fall asleep, something else can be heard from across the room. Melanie can't take a break from being a mother even while trying to sleep. Here's what happened next. Wonder why Melanie is awake at 1 a.m. She heard her little girl crying from the other room. Little Olive shuffles into her mom's room to get some comfort because she had an ear infection. As Olive felt much better after half an hour of cuddles, Melanie makes a pillow fence for baby Milo and heads back with Olive to her room. Baby Olive is now safe in her room and Melanie gets back to sleep next to Milo. Or so she thinks. It seems like Milo has found some new sleeping positions. His mom can't catch a break. While Milo has slept quite a few hours during the night and during the day, we can't say the same about poor Melanie. Someone's pretty occupied with waking mom at 4 a.m. Milo keeps in wiggling and pulling on his mom's hair. Then again, as he starts muttering something in baby language, Melanie couldn't be mad at him. It's no surprise she was always exhausted. Here's what she said about her nights while her husband wasn't there to help out. Melanie explains that, parenting doesn't end when the sun goes down. She also drew attention that she isn't the only one going through these experiences. She was exhausted, but fulfilled in the morning, knowing her babies were safe and loved. During these moments, let's think of all of the other parents that are up with their babies at the very same middle of the night moment, wrote Melanie. She said we should all, take comfort in the thought of each of us cradling our babies in the dark of our homes, together in shared experience. And now we all know why Melanie was so tired and she pretty much knew what the camera footage would reveal.  Melanie had some thoughts about what being a parent 24-7 means. I want to parent at night the same way I parent during the day. To have two nighttime parenting goals, one, get sufficient rest yourself and, two, meet the nutritional and emotional needs of your child, she explained. She admits that finding balance is a tough job. The 4 a.m. wake-up call is especially excruciating. Still, we haul ourselves out of bed with bleary eyes and pull our babies in close. In those quiet, dark hours, the lack of distraction can actually be quite calming and refreshing. A baby's needs tend to be simple, to be held and fed, said Melanie. Mothers are experts at both of those things, and the ability to so completely meet the needs of our amazing baby is profoundly satisfying. So, to all of the tired mothers out there, breathe in and breathe out. These days are intense but short-lived. Both you and baby will be sleeping more soundly before long, she said. For now, cuddle your babies, nurse them and love them no matter what time the clock says, added the young mom. The baby you rock tonight someday may have the opportunity to be gazing at the stars while holding a sweet baby of her own, wrote Melanie. After she shared the video on her YouTube channel, the response was amazing. Everyone loved how honest this video was and the messages Melanie had shared with the world. The video has been seen for more than 3.2 million times, got 15k likes, and this is why Melanie, Fit Mama 4-2 is even more popular on social media right now.