Good morning, everyone. Welcome back on this lovely Thursday with today's day. It is the first day of February, finally cleared out January. Let me tell you, surprisingly being the last day of the pay period, and which kind of stinks because it's always the last, it's right smack in the middle of the week. You know, we're not thinking like, well, how's the last day of pay period?    I actually did a, did a nice little post on my TikTok and on Instagram and Facebook. I don't know if you guys saw it regarding about the stock. I'm going to talk about plugging a little bit, which was pretty cool. So if you haven't seen it, we'll post it up there and make sure you are subscribed to our channel. If you're watching on social media, you know, once again, you have the phone, you can join our room, give us a thumbs up, subscribe to the channel and make sure you ring that bell, okay? Because you got to get those alerts, but we're going really well with the stock M-I-N-M. I want to talk about that one too, because this was one of the stocks I was trading in phase three. It was so cool. I also posted, and it was kind of weird about this whole thing. I'm talking about this stock and we would, I was asking the traders in the room and I said, as soon as I brought it up, let me just bring it up and show you what I mean, where I'm going with this. Right when I brought it up right around here, we were teaching our class. It says, you know what? The more it's consolidating, number two, it looks like it's going to start to break out and sure enough, we got in exactly within 10 seconds. That's why we had that big breakout and the thing ran from about 340 all the way up to 440. Now look what's happening right now. The stock is doing phenomenal. It's doing really, really well. We're getting a really nice push up to $6. A lot of you, everyone here is trading it. You know, that's going on the Faustal list. We'll talk a little bit about that in a little bit and we'll see where the orders are because that's the big thing. Where are the big blocks? Are they still pushing it up? Because this was beautiful. You could have came in here at 8.30 in the morning. You could have saw it early around 4.50. It is at $6.00. That's why Early Bird gets the money. We'll come back to it in a little bit, all right? But before we do that, go through the watch list. Let's talk about what happened yesterday. So, MINM is on the list. Okay, so listen, how stocks turn into swing trades? IMNM, hold on, I'm just writing it down. Let me tell you, I'm seeing a lot of orders getting filled on this stock. Something is up, something is up. I'm gonna come back and check on it. But that was one of the stocks up from yesterday and a couple of the stocks I wanna bring up. Plug, that was another one. So plug from yesterday, just wanna bring this up too.  So once again, make sure you subscribe to our channel. I know if you're not an Instagram fan or maybe you are a Tech fan or maybe more importantly, a lot of you are, a lot of YouTube fans. Definitely watch them. I'm gonna do a couple of tips and strategies, most short videos too. And also I'm gonna be doing a couple of really nice videos. I told you about how to use some of these big tools that we use. But this stock right here specifically, I was showing about some big iceberg orders, kept bidding it up. This stock plug, not only it hasn't been a good day trade yesterday, but it's been a phenomenal swing trade. Let me just bring up the swing trade on the stock. Plug, you could see it right here. We've been trading it in the past two weeks. Stock's been about 250. Look where it is right now. It's up 100%. What's making plug really, really nice, it's becoming a gap fill. And we all know what gap fills are. Maybe I'll do a class on that today. I'll do a quick little video, but plug back on the watch list. So not only it's been a good day trade, it's been a great swing trade. And for your options traders out there, could definitely probably hedge that too. Okay.  Okay. So that was another one that was a good move. Nice little cheat mover. A couple of other ones. Rum, rumble. That one's going back on the watch list. Here's another stock. Rumble was at the $4 price range. It's below, it was at $3.50. You could see it here. This is how day trades become swing trades. You remember we trade this the other day back on the 22nd. Stock rate from $3 to almost $5 is where it is now. It's up to seven. It's got a little resistance levels here, but rumble is going back on the day trading watch list.  It's going to bring it up over here. What a little data on it. See what's going on with it. A lot of stock, like I said, it's starting to turn into those. Run is another one that did pretty well. But then all of a sudden it hit like this triple top and was having this kryptonite right around that 1620. And you should have known that and we covered that a lot. If you didn't get out of that stock after that nice little run early in the morning, look what ended up happening. It ran up and it crammed crashing running down. So this is why you got to know where those orders are. But that one stock right there had a beautiful, beautiful iceberg order, big block order out there. And that's why it's so critical to know where those orders are.  Now one last stock I want to bring. Oh, we brought the rest. Okay, so that was it. Now today's going to be a pretty cool day because there's a lot of earnings closing out today. Today we got Apple, that's coming out with earnings. We got Amazon, which by the end, I'll tell you which one's my favorite and meta, okay? So you can see all these stocks have been doing absolutely fabulous. You saw what happened with Google, okay? Google's not doing too well. And I'll tell you what I've been hearing, okay? Which is my thought on this. Google makes all their money. Most of their money is made on advertising, okay? I don't know if anyone here is spending money on advertising, if you own a business, whatever it is. But Google is very expensive, very, very expensive. And if you look at meta, meta is obviously to advertise on meta, because you got Instagram and Facebook, it's a lot cheaper. It's a hell of a lot cheaper. So you could see how the trend on both of them, meta's been doing pretty well. And I'll tell you why, okay? Let me tell you something funny about Amazon too. Not only is Amazon doing great in shopping, but when you go shopping for something, okay?  You look, okay, what's the best computer, right? Oh, what's the best hairdryer, right? Where you end up going? It shows you, it brings you to Amazon. So Amazon does a lot of advertising on Google. You don't need to go to Google anymore. You just go to Amazon. So Amazon's now that it's start is really taking away a lot of the advertising dollars away from Google and they're gonna just do it all themselves. Like, why you gotta put it on Google? We're the main search engine. So that's also been a big thing. So Amazon's gonna, I probably feel Amazon's gonna probably do pretty well going into this close.  If you wanna know how these expensive stocks work, this is what we do. And the only way we're gonna know that, we need to follow those orders. All right, so those are the big things. Those are one of the fabulous sevens that are gonna be coming out with race today, with earnings coming out today. We'll see how that works out. Obviously, so it happened with Bernanke yesterday. He didn't raise interest rates.  And I do wanna talk about this also, okay? This is very, very important. I'm actually gonna do, I think I'm gonna do a video on this one too. I'm gonna do a video on the Dow. But how to trade earnings? You don't know until, first of all, don't ever, ever, ever, ever trade earnings when they make the announcement. It usually takes about 30 minutes until everyone starts to realize, okay, how is everybody reacting to it? Is that good news? Is that bad news? You know, you can't even understand these people. You know, with the kind of saying, you gotta like kind of read between the lines. But until people start, because what happened here is wanna blow this up. You saw the stock made a big roll. And the announcement came up at 2.30. You saw the market went up. And I was like, oh, maybe it's good news. I'm like, wait a minute. He didn't raise interest rates. I mean, I'm sorry. He had lower interest rates. It kept on the same. And now it's like, okay, where's it going with this? So it took about 45 minutes until it came back down.  It's not gonna work out. And that's how you had a nice little crash right there of the Dow. So, you know, these are the little things that you have to kind of take into consideration when it comes to trading. Where if you wanna learn how to trade that, that's how basically that works. I'll do a video on that really quick too on the Dow because I think a lot of people wanna understand how to trade stuff like that. Couple of the stocks, I wanna keep an eye on it too. SMCI is not going down. This thing, we watched it. Remember we owned the stock? I got out of it. And I'll be honest with you. I'm like this close to buying the back because it hasn't gone down. It hasn't gone down with earnings. It's hovering right there. It's got a little kryptonite around this 550. I will keep a close eye on the stock SMCI. All right. Once again, it's expensive. Maybe you could do the options on it, but I'm not a fan of trading $500 stocks. If I do some swing trades, I do watch them and they obviously do work pretty well. But the big stocks I wanna cover are obviously some of the small cap stocks. So there are a few small cap stocks that are moving. I wanna hop on to the big one that we saw earlier that I talked about, M, I, and M. So let me change the slide here and let me bring up to our watch list with our book viewer right here. So here's what we got going on right here. Let me fix my font. I keep forgetting to do this. Trying to do with the filters. Here we go. So right here, we got a couple of big orders hovering right around $5,000, $8,000, around $7.  And those orders got filled right there. You see a lot of, see the candle, the bar chart pretty green right there. Stocks got to push. Listen, it's probably gonna start taking a break right now. So I would keep an eye on it. Wait till the market opens up. Let's see how people react to it. It is up about 50%. So, but it's definitely a really, really nice stock right here. Another one that's moving up pretty decent, this stock right here, but it kind of died after a buck 60. Elab. So Elab, right around a buck 40. Yeah, you can see that there are 32,000 buyers versus 79,000 share sellers. It was looking good this morning. I will probably put this on the B list, then the A list. So I'm gonna write this down right here. This one, it is the biggest, it's the top three. You know, it was number one, I dropped to number two. Big volume list of stock I don't even know why it's even up there. This one got great volume. Another one, it's starting to come back down a little bit. What's nice about this one, orders just showed up right here on the stock right here on the bid. NRBO. Yeah, you see you got about 7,000 share buyer, a 390,000, 5,000, a couple of thousand share sellers out here. So we're getting some buyers starting to show up right around here now. I got an 8,000 share buyer out there on a different ECN on bats. You can actually see them right now. I see only there, 9,500. So we're getting buyers. So it looks like we got some support levels on this one. NRBO, once again, very cheap, very affordable. Everyone can trade it. AUVI, number one up about 17%. Looks like it just showed up right now. It's starting to push up. It was a $60 stock. Stock down to three.  I don't know yet, but AUVI. Ooh, 34,000 share seller right now at 340. Not a big fan of that. That's right around there. That kind of explains why I hit that high right there around seven o'clock. AUVI. So we'll see how that one is gonna get tested. All right, so 15. All right, we're done there. What else we got going on over here? NRBO, we already know about that one. That one's on our list. Peloton, they're not doing too well. So far, that was a fun stock a couple of days ago, right? We had fun with that one. ADEP was a fun stock too. We remember that one very well. LQR, I don't know what the hell's up with this thing, but is that really a $400 all of stock? And really came all the way back down to $2? You want to trade expensive stocks? You know, welcome to the game. You want to screw around on that one. Probably was even higher than that. No, that's it. That was it. We'll put it on the B list.  Maybe they started turning a corner. You don't know. That usually does happen. This thing is just destroyed. REVB, it was a $10,000 stock down to $3. Definitely a lot of reverse stock splits on that one, I could tell you that. And you know what? She's still not doing too good. She's still not doing too good. She's down 60% on top of that. Ouch. Maybe, could we get a dead cap bounce? I don't think so. You don't want pharmaceutical stocks like that. REVB, but you know what? Just for, you never know. We'll put it on the watch list. We need stocks that have action. New York Stock Exchange, anything going on over here? Not really, not really. Ooh, Ferrari just got, did must have had great earnings.  I was such a big fan of Ferrari. I was dying when that company went public. I had all my nephews and nieces in it. I'm a big Ferrari fan, and I got rid of it. I sold at like $160, $170, I think it was. I think I paid like $60 when the IPO price is. This thing has not backed off. But it's testing resistance. You can't day trade the stock. The stock trades very, very, very low volume. But Ferrari's doing great. We all know Ferrari, right? All right, losers are, look what we've done right there. Ooh, tea's doing pretty well. Hmm, interesting. AT&T making a little bit of a comeback. Breaking a new 52-week high, ah, interesting. Anyway, why not? All right, anything we're missing here? Louis Hamilton's time. Oh, get out of here, Andre. Did he really? Did you guys, did you watch my video? Andre, I posted a video on my Instagram. I was actually at the Formula One Grand Prix in Vegas. And I had a hundred dollar bill and he signed it. I don't know if everyone saw that. I was just standing there. I'm like, hey, Louis, could you sign my money? And then he's like, yeah, you go, he was like shaking hands, shaking hands. I said, Louis, sign my money. And he's like, he's trying to take it from me. He's like, oh, could I keep this? If you watch the video, it's pretty funny. But now you say it. I was like, I didn't really want to keep it or not. But I guess now I'm gonna keep it. So that's awesome. Just heard, yes. That was, oh, is that why you told me? Oh, okay, you heard it. But anyway, watch that video. It's pretty cool. Awesome. Wow. That's gonna sell a lot. That's why Ferrari's probably up, right? It wasn't earnings then. They signed with them and that's why it's up 50 points. There you go. There you go. All right. So Ferrari race, come on and watch us on the B list. All right. Oh, there it is. We're gonna post that. There's that link if you guys want to watch them. Thanks a lot, Rich, for sharing that. Let me post that up here in the other room. If you guys want to see that video with Hamilton, you signed my hundred all the bill. It's pretty cool. Everyone was like, can I get that? How'd you do that? I'm like, you know what? It was the right place at the right time. It was like probably like three, four, 500 people in there at the win hotel. I think race did have earnings. Okay. Well, I guess there's no better time than making an announcement during earnings. That's it. But I don't know if that's true, but we'll double check on that. All right. Jere from on Facebook wants to say, Fausto, could you check really quick on AMD? So AMD, this is the problem, AMD. I got out of AMD. AMD is weird, okay? AMD, I feel like it's piggybacking off NVIDIA. And you can see NVIDIA never backed off. NVIDIA's been doing great, but AMD started backing back it off. I got out of NVIDIA, okay? After the earnings, I didn't like the earnings. I sold it right before earnings. Earnings came back down. That was my swing trade that I did on that one too. And it's just not really doing too well. So I'll be a little cautious on that. Looks like it's got support at levels around 162. All right. Okay, guys, let's get ready. Now listen, very, very important. Today, we have a bunch of events that are going on today. We're going to have top gun options. It's going to come on 11 o'clock and then we're going to have open house. I'm going to go out there and I'm going to post that link for everybody here to guys and register right there. So I'm going to be able to talk about how to trade high-frequency trades at 12. So we have a two-day event, a two event today between, you know, Wiz from Top Gun Options, which by the way, I'm really excited to see him because he's going to take me on his fighter jet. He actually owns a fighter jet. Could you imagine that? We're going to go, I'll do a video on that. It's going to be pretty cool. So, and then we're going to do a podcast together. But I'm all looking forward to him to come on and talk about options. So if you haven't registered, make sure you register and click on that link. That's going to be at 11 o'clock Eastern and then I'm going to come back at 12 o'clock right after and talk about how to trade the high-frequency trades. So let's get registered for that. In the meantime, everyone, let's get ready, Mark, it's opening up in 10 minutes. Don't go anywhere. And if you're watching on social media and you want to come and join us, we're here live all day long. Just take your phone, scan that QR code, and also you can click on that link because if you are watching this later, you can always get the recording of it. Good luck, everyone. Happy trading. We'll see you in a little bit.


Okay, hello everyone. Welcome back to a CUBE Conversations here in Malboro, Massachusetts at the Wikibon headquarters. I'm John Furrier with SiliconANGLE. We have the cloud roundup with the Wikibon analysts, Brian Grace Lee, Stu Miniman, Dave Vellante. Guys, welcome to this CUBE Conversation. We want to get down and dirty with the cloud roundup, the state of the cloud. Certainly a lot of action going on.  Bottom line is that the market's upside down. Things are disruptive. A lot of innovation happening. Cloud is the platform. It's changing everything from the VMware ecosystem all the way across to web apps and mobile apps, mobile-first cloud-first. So, Brian, first up, what's going on with cloud?  Or is that just the trend where the economics are and that is where everyone wants to be? Did Amazon get to the territory first? Or is it their model that is working? Yeah, so it's an interesting thing.  And, but the one complication to the whole thing is so, they just announced numbers. They're doing six billion. They're growing 70, 80% year-over-year. And then you put that six or seven billion or eight billion, whatever it's gonna be for the year, in context and it's a small percentage of who they're competing against, whether it's Oracle or Cisco or VMware or whoever. So you have this unusual situation of, massive mind share, defining the market, but not enough revenue to say that they're gonna go knock down the really next five, six, seven dominant IT players.  And they're working hard to win the enterprise. Absolutely. They're moving very quickly. So Amazon integrated stack, we've talked about this day, we've talked to Amazon and Stu about their model, how it's working effectively. Still kind of a lock-in, some will say, but it certainly changed the game. Kind of. It certainly changed the game. We went to Oracle, we heard Oracle for the first time, put Amazon on top of their competitive list. Not the usual suspects like IBM or EMC. Larry Ellison always talks IBM, IBM, IBM. Now it was Amazon.  What's going on, Stu? Yeah, so it's, as Brian said, Amazon owns the developer mind share. The last couple of years when we go to reinvent, it feels like there's two Amazons. There's the developer-centric one and the one that's trying to win the enterprise. Amazon is kicking butt when it comes to the developers but the enterprise stuff, it's going to take time. I hear what Oracle announced and absolutely Oracle is huge in the enterprise today but, you know, if I'm a developer, really I'm going to go to the red stack. I mean, that's a big question to me there as opposed to Amazon. If we're replatforming for moving things, it's kind of easier to move into that new world and start there, it's the green field, it's all these mobile developers, there's so much newness going on in Amazon that it feels like that's where the puck's going to and our forecast is, I mean, Amazon's doing well and the public cloud is going to continue to grow for quite a bit so we're nowhere near the equilibrium level as to where they'll sit in the overall marketplace. Dave, Stu just put down Oracle saying, would a developer ever go to Oracle? Do they really care?  They have a DBA market. I mean, will it become as easy? Do they even need to have a hardcore developer? Well, Oracle owns Java and they own my SQL so, you know, there's a developer drag there and you can say, okay, but we're talking about, you know, mobile cloud developers but still a lot of developer leverage there. I think the couple things are clear. One is IT is moving to utility. People want to buy in the consumption model. IT, CIOs are under tremendous pressure from the corner office and the lines of business to act more like and deliver services more like Amazon. Those two things are crystal clear and then Amazon comes along and redefines the economics of IT.  Okay, well look what happened. You had, now you have mainframe margins for Microsoft and Intel and I think you're going to see the same thing with Amazon. They've got the mother of all lock-ins. They've got the de facto standard through their API. You know, they bogart open source like crazy but they don't really give back. I mean, it is the modern day monopoly playbook and it's working. Okay, so what does competitors do? You got companies out there like CenturyLink. You got OpenStack growing and moving. Maybe not as fast as some say. You got VMware. You have HP, EMC, Pivotal. What's the state of the union guys? Are people winning? Who's winning? Who's not winning? Who's stuck in the mud commentary? To Brian's point, the vast majority of the market is still not Amazon.  So there's tons of opportunity there. The question is, is what kind of turbulence do these companies have to go through to achieve that opportunity? I think it's going to be heavily services led because it's really, really complex. So IBM, you know. Microsoft. And then you've got Microsoft and Google who very clearly have the scale to compete. Bottom line for me is you've got two ways to compete. One is you've got to have massive scale or you have to have some kind of differentiation like Oracle has with the database and the middleware and the applications layer or like a service now, which is really SaaS but we're, I think, talking mostly about infrastructure and or you've got to have local belly-to-belly services. Well, let's name names. Guys, let's name names. Can I just poke at that real quick? Because when we did our big data and analytics forecasting, we think that fundamentally, services led offerings are not sustainable over the next 10 years. It needs to be baked into software. And when I look at what Amazon does, Amazon is a master at just adding service, adding software, new features on, you know, a usual marginal economics example for Amazon to add a couple new features or add to the next thousand customers is basically free for them. So, you know, it's the people that can help build that new platform and, you know- We have scale. Yeah, this is the point. The point is scale. Services, you know, belly-to-belly services aren't going to scale. So they got, you know, at volume, lousy marginal economics. And so I think our point was that in the big data world, software is going to eat the world, right? We buy into that thesis. But that doesn't mean services go away.  It's just not going to scale. They're not direct sale. Belly-to-belly direct sales is not the way cloud works. Scott McNeely used to have a saying, services where big companies go to die. Now, of course, IBM was sort of the exception to that rule, but in a way they prove that rule. But services don't go away in this model. They're just not nearly as attractive from a margin standpoint as software. And what Amazon's doing with its provisioning services is creating a software-like economic model. Well, this breaks the question, Dave. First of all, I think services is an old definition. Scott McNeely's been out of the game for a long time. Services in the computing business were professional services. You now have self-service with SaaS business models. Yeah, absolutely. That's legitimate. That is indirect sales, high margin, scalable profit. And I think that's the model that wins. So services led can be somewhat different. So this brings the debate. Guys, who's winning? Let's get back to names. Microsoft, Google, Amazon, CenturyLink. The list goes on. Verizon's got, these all got clouds now. Everyone's going to have a cloud. How do people make sense of it? Who's stuck in the mud? Who's winning? Well, so if we go through the short checklist, Amazon's winning. I think Microsoft's turning the corner. I think they're doing a lot, lot better. I don't think OpenStack's winning other than from a marketing perspective. I don't think you're seeing big clouds running OpenStack. It's still a big mess of a lot of vendors and does it really work and all that sort of stuff. So you're not seeing them do that. To me, the big thing is, and this is the miss that a lot of these guys have, I think if you look at the really big vendors, they're so used to playing from the front of the game, the front of the pack, and they want lock-in stuff. So when you get pushed into a thing where you go, you can't lock in and you're behind, they don't know what game to play. And you talk about, well, what could they do? Well, they all admit that Amazon, to a certain extent, is a commodity play, yet none of them want to copy their technology. They don't sort of commoditize Amazon. Every one of them have bigger sales forces than Amazon, even though they're growing and they're probably around 1,500 people. Cisco has got 30, 40,000, EMC's got 10, 12, 15,000. Those, as they move into the enterprise, enterprise want to buy from people they know. They don't want to buy from a cold call. They don't want to buy the credit card. None of them are taking advantage of that. None of them are saying, commoditize Amazon, let my sales force get in front of you, give you similar type of technologies and then build on top of that. And it's, I think it's because none of them have ever played a game where the rules have been flipped over and it's been pushed back on them. Well, interesting, that's a great analysis. Oracle, Ellison stands up now, whether or not it's true, this is Larry Math. He says we will match Amazon price per bit. He's taking Brian's playbook. It's taking Brian's playbook. And, what he doesn't say is, and then we'll make a ton of money on top of that with our database licenses, which are not going to change the licensing and our applications model. Yeah, David, we've seen this more before. The earlier announcement this year, going after kind of EMC and the whole VBlock and said, we'll give you that infrastructure cheaper and higher performance and, you know, of course they'll make it up on their applications. But it's funny, I remember your interview with a stonebreaker, you know, earlier this summer and said, you know, the Oracle playbook was the America's Cup Playbook, which is getting the lead and then watch what your competition's doing and make shifts against that. But as Brian said, you know, people aren't trying to copy Amazon and Amazon is just, they're not standing still. So the question is to keep adding onto what they're doing. And the question to Brian's point is, can they even make those moves? So the assumption is they could commoditize Amazon. So does that make the Jerry Chen investment in Docker interesting? Did he see the opportunity to say, hey, if these guys can't move fast enough to commoditize Amazon, let's create Docker in a way that gives the weaker players or the enterprise guys who were always at the top of the pack an option. Is Docker filling that void as a way to faster accelerate some sort of play against Amazon? Or is that just luck? And your expectation that Microsoft will buy Docker, Brian, that's so good. What should you take on the Docker relative to that? I think Docker is an interesting company from a technology perspective. They really don't radically change the economics, right? There's been free, quote unquote, virtualization for years and years. And then the people that make money on that free virtualization are, you know, Amazon. They run on top of free hypervised. So you've got to be able to take whatever that sort of ecosystem is and make money on top of it. I think too many companies want to make money out of that commodity thing, you know? To me, the biggest thing is.  VMware? VMware. Number one. VMware, Pivotal, anybody who does platform as a service or anybody who does virtualization. I think if you're Amazon, your biggest competition is, can you build data centers fast enough? Is Jeff Bezos going to keep giving you money to reinvest or is he going to start taking it and putting it in the retail? Like they're their own worst enemy, if anything. Like they're kind of, they've got headwinds and their tailwinds and I don't think they look at that as much. The other thing that they do completely different than everybody else, and we talked about the Federation on a previous call. You deal with Amazon. You don't deal with, you know, business unit this and business unit that and business unit that and they keep building on top of their services. So, you know, their new database service builds on top of their object storage service. Their new database service builds on top of their, you know, fast compute service. You don't get the compute BU. And the structured, you know. It's all integrated. It's all integrated. It's all integrated, right. Integrated stack on Amazon works. But Amazon leaves a lot of openings for its competition, doesn't it? It's doing, they basically go in and say, we're going to be dogmatic about sweeping the floor. You know, our way of the highway, they don't recognize hybrid, you know, cloud as a valid concept. They don't make their own applications for the most part. So Microsoft's got a huge space there. All the SaaS vendors have a huge space there. What's Google's playing on this? They have scale. What else do they have? Well, they're relevant, right? Because of things like Kubernetes. But to me, you guys think they're just not getting it done in the enterprise. I mean, is Google committed to the enterprise? And maybe it doesn't need to be.  We're focused on, you know, just the analytics part of the market. And they said, forget about it. Google has the best network in the world, I think, bar none. I mean, if they want to be, you know, a player, if you talk about how much investment has to go into data centers, Google's made this investment.  And they've got lots, lots of bandwidth. Absolutely, they've got large scale. And it's interesting because Google, they have their own services, but they're partnering across the board. So Kubernetes is a very interesting play. If we talk about portability across clouds, you know, open stack, public clouds, you know, Kubernetes can be, you know, part of the catalyst to allow that to happen. And Google's quietly building off that dark fiber, right? So let's not forget what Google's working on. So Google has a lot of resources, but they have a lot of potential. And unfortunately, I think to the sports world, if you say somebody has a lot of potential, it means that they're not hitting on all cylinders and meeting the expectations that we have for them. Maybe we had set our goals too high for where Google's aspirations are in the cloud, but hey, they're partnering with VMware. You know, we had a good interview with them last year at VMware. Brian, to the point, to Stu's point, Google's kind of in, he's implying they're kind of in last place or blagging. The question is, are they even in the game? Because Google's cautious. You look at, you know, they do with Google Plus or Total Hail Mary, they pulled that back. But traditionally, Google tends to start things organically. They're already huge. They already have that kind of scale of an Amazon. Are they truly even in the game? I think, I mean, I don't have any direct insight, but I feel like enterprise, the enterprise to Google is boring. I think they look at it, they enjoy the launch, they enjoy the party, and then they don't care about the enterprise because the enterprise means I've got to quote things and I've got to do support and I've got to do boring stuff and to me, I don't think they care about that or at least it's not interesting enough to get above anything else.  Do I want to tie my application to you guys?   They certainly do a good job on open source. They have a developer. They contribute like crazy. They do a great job with the things they're good at, but the rest of them, it's a spotty track record. So for them, you guys would agree that for them to be successful ecosystem would they have to build out an ecosystem because they wouldn't want to, that's not their core competency what you're saying, to build out end to end enterprise. Okay, Microsoft, stay with some Microsoft. We've been seeing them pop up. David Floyer and I were talking at the last event, you mentioned them. We've seen them on TV with advertising. Microsoft Cloud, what's the deal? So Microsoft's got, I mean, obviously getting some things done, they got some momentum, but they've got a huge technology install base that's been built up over decades and now they got to bring that over to the cloud. So they got some internal complexity with the plumbing, but they seem to be hiding it pretty well.  Brian, I'm curious to hear what you think about the developer community, but in the private side on virtualization, they've closed the gap with VMware a bunch. They've got a good solve position in public and private, good hybrid story, cloud first, pull the pieces together. And as we said, they own a lot of applications. So Office 365 is getting a ton of people comfortable with the cloud and SaaS environments. So Microsoft is serious about what they're doing with the cloud. Yeah, no, to me, they're the sleeping giant. I think they've gotten over the hump. I think the new leadership allows them to embrace new technology. They're not fighting it like Walmart did. They've gotten more money than anybody in this game so they can invest, they can, whether they're investing in data centers or they're investing in anything else. To me, the big thing is, can they convince their channel to, can they make money for their channel to push people towards their services? Because in their game, it's all software. It's software in the private side, software in the public side, there's margins to be made there. And then they've got to get developers to get back to going Windows. That's for old people, that's not for my application. They've got to find a way to reinvigorate people to want to develop on Microsoft technologies, maybe not so much Windows technologies. Yeah, and Brian, actually on that, Microsoft really embraced Linux. I mean, talk about open source. I mean, Microsoft plus open source is goodness. Well, the numbers that I see, it's about 25% of the Azure cloud is running on Linux. So there's people that trust them enough with their Linux workloads because they trust the company. But to your point on Windows, you see the commercials, Microsoft? Is this child, these kids grew up with Windows? And you ask your kid, what? That's the new push for Windows. What's Windows? They'll go, huh? What do you mean? But also they had the Docker announcement.net really energized that old community of developers with Docker. Interesting things going on Azure. IBM certainly on the messaging side now. Second year in, day full throttle, cloud mobile, social big day, that kind of old thing. Blue mix, cloud foundry. Is that open stack momentum herding IBM? Guys, what's your take on IBM? I mean, there's certainly all in. You're seeing a lot of effort and they're accelerating fast. But what's the outlook on IBM? Well, $2 billion for software.  Can this actually work for IBM? But IBM's making it work because they're a big giant services company that is enforcing revenue. We don't know, we'll look at it. I mean, there's revenue that they're shoving in and maybe it's a kitchen sink accounting model. But IBM's got a cloud story and it's going to keep its customers in that big blue cloud blanket. And so I think- It's not lip service. They're putting a lot of dough in there. Yeah, and Blue Mix is their cloud web sphere. And web sphere worked pretty well for IBM. It just sort of keep pounding, keep forcing. A great sales company. And now you look at EMC, it goes out and buys Virtustream. Is Virtustream? How about we go to Virtustream? Yeah, yeah. Let's get to it. Let's stay on IBM. Let's stay on IBM. But my point is IBM's got a lead on the rest of the legacy vendors. I think they're ahead of where HP is from a public cloud standpoint. Now, people would criticize them and say they're forcing you into the software public cloud because they're giving up on the hardware business. All right? I mean, that's the sort of criticism at IBM, but well, their story is a same choice. Guys, what you're taking on that? Right, I think we turned back the clock to when IBM bought SoftLayer was kind of, I don't know what they are and are they going to be able to make hay with it. We knew IBM could handle the applications and was going to build out a SaaS portfolio. I think if you look at kind of the enterprise SaaS marketplace out there, other than Amazon, IBM might have the second best from a broad ecosystem that's there. Just lots of choices out there. I'm not sure. They've purchased hundreds and hundreds. But I'm saying, because their ecosystem that they've built, I mean, the services organization, I'm not saying this is IBM and what they have, but they've got a lot of partners in there, but right, how much revenue is in all of those buckets? And from an infrastructure as a service standpoint, at least the way that they show it, they're now number three. I mean, they have more infrastructure as a service revenue than Google. So they're playing with the big boys. They fall out of bed, they hit the water, generally out of a boat, they get revenue. Let's talk about, let's talk about product, cloud product. Is there product, cloud revenue?  You know, Pivotal with Cloud Foundry has a lot more customers there. You've got HP Healion with an alternative message there. BlueMix has built on Cloud Foundry. Right, but I'm saying out of that Cloud Foundry ecosystem out there, I haven't seen the customer from IBM yet that I want to see. Again, same up and stack story. And IBM is still making lots of acquisitions. I mean, they bought BlueBox, friend of the cubes, you know, we've seen that number of other acquisitions in the space. They keep it out. They have a big DevOps culture developing. Look, IBM's a player in the space. Well, they're acquiring and building. But my point is that, yes, you're right, but let's get Brian's take on this. Brian, what's your take on IBM? I think they've got potential, you're right. I mean, they've got the biggest install base in terms of big revenue customers. They're not chasing after people that don't pay them. They know how to make money. I think they hedge their bet. They go, we do Docker stuff. We do open stack stuff. We've been doing open source for longer than any of you sort of established players. So we know how to play that game. My big question is like Stu said, they talk about 400,000 BlueMix customers, right? They're past, but are they making any revenue, right? Because they play these games of like, how do you report revenue? Are they, I'm one of those revenue customers. And I don't know. Well, here's why I think IBM wins in the long run. What does IBM have that none of the other big enterprise hardware guys have, hardware sort of software guys have? And that's like deep, deep, deep services. Deep, deep, deep industry expertise. They have industry expertise that's comparable to Accenture, Ernie Young, Deloitte. It's because of the PWC acquisition. So what IBM, point number one, point number two is analytics is very, very complicated. So it's very, it's really extremely services led. But as we talked about earlier, services don't scale, bingo. So what they do is package services or industry oriented templates, analytic templates, and they can start to scale that. That is a winning formula. And that's what I think Pitchiano's group is challenged to do. I mean, that plus Watson. Well, the vertical focus. The vertical focus, there's always been industry focus, IBM and all the big Oracle friends the same way. Industry focus, with big data, that is interesting, right? And if they could prepackage those analytics, take away the headaches and almost prepackage DevOps. To me, I think that's a strategy. I think IBM I'm impressed with with the DevOps focus. The guys I talked to at IBM aren't no ops. They know their cloud. They might not have the product. I don't think the product is even baked out yet and they know that, but there's some holes they got to fill. But they move it fast. So to me, it's like they have time. So the question is, can they bring their services piece in there and package it up? So I think IBM is really more misunderstood than understood. Yeah, I think they've done some things organizationally. Ginny is jamming big components of the services organization into the product groups. And I think that's a smart move. Okay, let's talk about EMC now, because you brought that up to a virtual stream. Yeah, EMC made an acquisition. Yeah, okay. They bought cloud scaling. They bought virtual stream and a variety of other acquisitions. Guys, we all know EMC. Is that just to kind of get ready for the VMware spin in? Well, I think it's a signal. What's your take on it? I don't know. Well, first of all, my first reaction was there. Well, VCloud Air must not be working if they've got to go get, you know, virtual stream and as I said, it's virtual stream EMC software. And they're a couple of years behind that whole play. So they need, you know, a better hybrid cloud, better cloud story.  Yeah, well, I don't think that EMC is going to, you know, start spending billions of dollars building out data center. It's, they felt that they had a gap between what they were doing in VCloud Air and, you know, what EMC was doing with EMC hybrid cloud and, you know, just the traditional, you know, understand the infrastructure layer and virtual stream. Or as IBM has an outsourcing business and they can afford to do that for other reasons. So, you know, I think, you know, what one of the benefits if EMC was to spin in VMware is they might be able to have a more holistic cloud strategy because it does feel like there's a few different strategies and who do they report to and how does that structure work is something I'd like to see mature a bit. Brian, you just came from EMC, just left through there. What's going on? Give us the inside baseball without breaking any laws and you know, as much as I can talk. I mean, I think you know, you look at VCloud Air, you look at what virtual stream did. Both of those focus on what they call platform two applications. Virtual stream's got an expertise in SAP and VMware's trying to sort of play the VMware on both ends of the pipe thing. That's kind of right in EMC's wheelhouse in terms of, you know, traditional, churn the business, do those sort of things. But the question, you know, the question I would ask Joe or Rodney Rogers or any of them is, where does this drive you in terms of growth, broader growth? Does it make the market any bigger? It's a 2.5 product. I mean, it's a 2.5 thing, right? Not a platform three, which is the crossover. Right, and neither one of those VCloud Air or virtual stream had massive footprints. They had, you know, footprints in the US and then small footprints and the rest. They're going to very quickly get into that game of how many data centers can you build? How many servers can you buy? How much capacity can you take on? Because a billion two, you better drive a lot of revenue in there. So I come back to the marginal economics argument. So it reminds me of when everybody was trying to compete with Microsoft, you know, in the early days.  And Novell thought they could compete, but they just didn't have the volume and the scale. Not really. Until Windows Server. Until Microsoft killed them, they did great. And Amazon is taking a similar kind of playbook. It's like, you see an Uber do now the same thing in its industry. And so it's going to be very difficult for the HPs. We'll see about IBM. IBM's got some other advantages like Oracle and EMCs to compete from an economic standpoint with Amazon. And so they're going to have to do it with other sort of techniques that add value. Yeah. I would be remiss that we forgot about HP because HP is an interesting company. Martin Fink knows open source. He's got the ear of Meg Whitman. They're clearly going in on open source, but it just doesn't seem like the cloud's getting in town over there. It's like, what's going on with HP? I mean, I like the group over there. They got some good heavy hitters. Sar was over there, and then he's doing this over here. Fink's got the open source. They believe in open source, so I love that mission. Is it translating the product? It seems to be confusing, guys. What's your take on HP? I mean, John, there's no doubt that HP is relying on open source. And if they want to move fast, they're going to need to rely on that more. One of the biggest challenges we've seen is it seems at least every 12 months, there's a new person in charge. And that the high level direction hasn't changed all that much. But they've made some acquisitions. You collect this acquisition, Martin Mika's comes in and then he's out, so. Sar galized in, he's out, Beery was there first. Now you got new people coming. So you're basically saying too many revolving executives. Absolutely, that is a big concern. Healy on cloud is one of the solutions using cloud foundry.  I mean, big bet on open stack. We haven't spent a lot of time talking about it here, but HP feels like they're pushing a lot of chips towards that side of the board to be able to leverage open stack. Is HP the company that doesn't get enough respect in your mind here, or is it self-inflicted? Because they do a lot of good work. You look at open stack as one dimension. They got a huge install base. They have a huge can, just with their own customers, it's kind of like an Oracle model. Are they getting enough respect or are they just not getting it done? But they do inflict a lot of their pain. Yeah, you're right. You know, the management changes, the autonomy acquisition, I mean, a lot of missteps.  They change it every three to six months. And when you got to retell the world with your story, you're in public cloud. No, we didn't mean we're not out of public cloud. We're in, we're out. You can't recover from those sort of things, or you can't convince people that you're going to do it. You said confusion. That's the word that comes to mind when I think of what HP is doing around cloud. It's, I can't tell from month to month. You don't know what kind of animal it is. One minute it's a lion, next minute it's an alligator. What is it, what's going on here, right? I mean, well, it's a huge company with a very loyal customer base. Used to work there, so you know the company pretty well. And people, you've said this before, John, people want HP to win. Their customers want them to win. Their channel partners want them to win. Everybody's rooting for them. And now they're going through the distraction of, you know, splitting the company in two. And it's like that. It's like that video on YouTube where they give the guy the ball and he moves out of the way as the old guy stumbles across the finish line. It's all kind of staged. I mean, that's the way I feel what HP's going on here. They just can't get the ball over the finish line. Everyone's not going to get out of the way in the cloud. It's too competitive. So it's cloud system, it's on premise really, right? It's, and it's choice, HP does. Well, what do you think about Dave Donnelly's comments that I quoted him on my Forbes article where he says, if you don't have a public cloud in the future, as an infrastructure player, you won't make it. Do you believe that to be true? XHP executive now works for Mark Hurd, ex-former CEO of HP. You better have a public cloud strategy, you know? So owning a public cloud, if you can make money at it, is probably a good thing, but just owning a public cloud to own a public cloud is probably not such a good thing. So, right? But you have to accommodate public cloud in your portfolio or you're going to miss a big chunk of the market. So that's a real conundrum for companies, right? I mean, if you can't make money at it, you kind of, okay, guys. Got to do it as a lost leader? So, wrap up this segment here. Share it to the folks out there. What's this year going to look like in the cloud battleground? Obviously it's competitive. HP's going to try to bulk up and get better. IBM's continuing to pedal faster. Oracle's putting a stake in the ground. We're there, we're complete. Watch the numbers fall out of the sky. We're going to put the numbers on the scoreboard. Amazon's just going to continue doing their thing. Get CenturyLink out there. A lot of service providers like Verizon doing cloud. What's going on with all the stuff out there? I'll take a line from Club of Lang. Pain, there's going to be a lot of pain. Do you think there's going to be a game in the trenches or is it going to be an air show? What's going to happen? I think you're going to see both. I think Amazon has a major air force and they've got a good ground game as well. Feet on the streets. I think what we've seen so far, this conventional wisdom of the momentum that Amazon has, I don't see that slowing down anytime soon. And I think the big question is, how will the large enterprise players respond? Can they respond? By the way, I think they can. I think the rich keep getting richer in this game. You just got a new player called Amazon.  They're not going to give up their territories.  The guys who run these organizations are smart. They've seen, they saw the Ken Olsons and the Edson DeCastros and the Ann Wangs got crushed. They did a lot of the crushing. And so they're putting in place systems and strategies so that doesn't happen again. And they have tons of cash. So you're saying it's a strategic battle at this point? It is a strategic battle at this point. Absolutely. And I think there are some moves in the chess board. Microsoft buying Docker is an interesting one. The whole EMC spin in, spin out. I mean, that's clearly high stakes games of guys who are really smart. To me anyway, putting out signals like stop messing with us. Okay, yes or no question. Radical transformation in this industry, yes or no? Yes. Yes, yes. Okay, what are we going to see in that area?  So the way I get margin, the way to go to market, the way I deliver services, it's all changing. We've talked a lot about the vendor ecosystem. Look at the people that have been selling infrastructure for years. There's a very small percentage of those, kind of the VAR systems integrators out there that have public cloud as part of their service, but the ones that are doing it have actually been doing pretty well, becoming trusted advisors, even more to their users, but they have to change how they do things and they have to retool and boy, it's changing fast. Retooling. We talked about, came out of DockerCon, Brian and I were talking and said, the speed of change is just so radically different. You used to think in the enterprise, major update, maybe every 12 months, maybe 18 months, follow Moore's law from a software development standpoint. It's now maybe every six months or heck, every two months we're going through revs in there. When I'm in a public cloud, I don't even think about revision control anymore. They're going to do that all on the back end. So everything is just going to move much faster. I need to be more agile. I need to be able to change even more and that's really hard for a lot of people to do. So, truly disruptive and we've seen a lot in the last few years and it's only going to accelerate as time goes on. Brian, your thoughts on the battleground out in the field. I agree with Dave. I think there's going to be blood in the water. We haven't talked about like Cisco, for example, another huge player, but chambers before he left, he said, look, some of you big guys aren't going to be around. I think you're going to see big companies like a NetApp or Citrix or maybe HP, they're not going to be around. This is a billions of dollar investment every quarter, tens of billion dollars in cash to buff it yourself. You better be a software-centric company and you better figure out how to start figuring out the economics of doing things on demand. If you're massive sales force, capex centric, don't have the money, thanks for playing because the game has totally changed. Remember Cisco was just one of those little companies back in the 90s. Yeah, well, we didn't talk about them. They've got a brand new CEO who's bought a couple of software companies lately. Maybe this is, you know. I mean, I think one of the things that I see in the CUBE interviews and looking at history and then looking at being in the trenches now is a lot of these companies that we're talking to really don't recognize the fact that, you know, eight years ago when the iPhone came out, smartphone industry changed, big data, all these things just now connected.  And I think that is so transformational that the next Cisco is out there. There is another startup out there that will be the next Cisco, or in a new way to make the underlying infrastructure work better for all these new ways. We'd be remiss if we didn't mention Red Hat.  Why you do it, not what you do. And so that's sort of Red Hat, a lot of momentum and a lot of leverage. Yeah, as Dave, when we interviewed Jim Whitehurst in his book, the open organization, talked about, you know, Red Hat's whole mission is to catalyze communities. So if open source is going to be a big, you know, play in what we're talking about in cloud, you know, Red Hat, Red Hat's going there, but, you know, they're living in a lot of the public clouds. But just also to circle back, talking about Cisco, I remember back in the 90s, talked about the, you know, four horsemen of the internet era. And it's, you know, Oracle's still standing. Cisco's doing okay. You know, sun's gone.  You know, we didn't talk about Intel. You talk about, there's so many players you could go into here.  You know, we talk about what's going on in OCP. Talk about all the chip manufacturers that have been bought recently.  The computing form factor has changed. Everything is just, you know, going through such major structures. So the edge of the network now is computers, people, devices, IoT, everything. And that's radically changing everything. Yeah, the cloud is putting forth this vision of a consolidated set of infrastructure that's, you know, accessed through an API. And that's a horizontal layer. And it's going to be a considerably consolidated industry. And you've seen that with converged infrastructure as being sort of a second layer. Okay, so what inning are we in final question? This radical change we just talked about, we all believe, if you believe that to be true, it's going to happen. It's matter of time. Are we in the third inning, one inning, second inning? No, I think we're getting to the, you know, middle part of the game here. You think so? Yes, I think, yes. Deep innings, five? Yeah, I think we're getting, not deep innings yet, but I think we're midway through the game here. Fourth, fifth inning, you know, top of the fifth, yes. That's what I think. National anthem, come on. No, I don't think so. Did Dave, the starting pitcher starting to get tired is what you're saying, and we might be having some more of the team coming. That's the case, it's jump ball, and I don't see it as jump ball. I don't, I see it as, I see Amazon, you know, solidifying its moves. I see, we talked about, you know, Red Hat, I think Microsoft clearly player, Intel clearly player. You know, so I- iPhone's eight years old, Uber still, no one understands what Uber does in Airbnb. I mean, these new innovations are- Are we talking about industry transformation or the IT industry? Oh, I mean, everything is based upon the workload now shifted, so if the workloads are going to be changing, if software's eating the world, and that's forcing them to like change the infrastructure, you could argue, we're in the lower innings. I mean, virtualization, that's the endgain, I mean. So look at the last big, look at the last big transformation. What's the disruptive enabler, technically? Look at the last big transformation. Outside of mobile and IoT. What was the last big transformation? Let's go back to the PC era. What was it, 1982? Right, IBM PC? Right, was that the first inning? I would say that was, yeah, probably first inning.  Everybody thought it was early game. Nobody wanted to touch Intel and Microsoft stock in 1991. There was no Cisco in the first inning? Yeah, well, I guess no, there was no three common. Not in the first inning, not in 1982, but- Is that third inning? By the early part of the 90s, it started to become pretty clear. So where are we analogous to that? Okay, picking inning. I'm saying fourth, fifth inning. Now you're coming back, Capcom. No, I said fifth inning before. I'm saying bottom of the first. No! I'm going on record bottom of the first. Let's do it. Yeah, no, I have to side with Dave because I think if you look and say, okay, five years from now, is Amazon going to be a player? It's like, absolutely. That is determined. We know who some of the big players and big winners they are. John, first inning? I don't know what team showed up.  That's fair. This time he's going to get balled. I'll give you that. We're deeper into the game. I think we're sixth, seventh inning in terms of that new cloud infrastructure, like what it's going to look like, whether you deliver it or not. I think we're in about the first or second inning in terms of those cloud native applications because it's always going to drag because it's the application plus the new business model. It's not productivity anymore. It's the new business model. Brian, you sound just like an analyst. It depends. Okay, so we're living in software. One day in, there you go. So the takeaway from this is on the infrastructure side, it's clear who the big winners will be. That's what you're saying. I'm saying it's clearer. Clearer. So there's still some question marks with our EMC, right? With the corporate structure. HP splitting up. I'm not sure I see Amazon winning this game. Okay, I mean, I would say that. I'll take that bet. I will bet you.  You know, we didn't even talk about Dell.  Is Amazon running the table on the enterprise? They're only doing seven billion in revenue. Yeah. On 80% of years. So they're accelerating the growth. I think Amazon is running the table. I'm a fan of AWS. They're still getting it wrong. But I mean, and when they start running the table on the enterprise, then it gets my attention. You know, public cloud, pretty easy business. What number tells you they're running it? Is it $20 billion? What's the number that tells you they're starting to run the table? 100 billion in revenue. Nice number. What was Facebook's quarterly, less quarter? 100 billion in revenue? That's running the table. Okay, well, there are ways away from that. Okay, well guys, any other parting comments on the cloud besides the inning, pegging the inning and laying out the horses on the track in this case? Well, I think that one of the things that surprises me, John, is the extent to which some of the large established companies that we've been following don't have a big strategy. And we've been talking about this since 2006, 2007, right, and this is not like a big surprise that this is happening.  Nick Carr wrote about it for crying out loud. And so it's what is the surprise is how long it's taking a lot of the enterprise companies to really have a strategy in place. That's why I give IBM credit. They said after the CIA debacle, when Amazon kicked them out of the CIA and they lost that high profile case, they said, holy crap, we have to do something. And I do give them credit for moving fast. So IBM moved fast. So IBM, surprisingly, the elephant, I guess, Ken Dance, I see other companies fumbling. We talked about HP's missteps. You see VMware and, okay, vCloud Air, Whoopi. You see an EMC with Virtustream, NetApp, what's NetApp's cloud strategy to do a one-way ticket into AWS? So the better analogy is not so much what ending in the game, what part of the season. It's early on in this game right now. So there's plenty of time. Let's do what you take, final thoughts. I don't think there is plenty of time. I disagree with that. I think if you don't have a- You said most companies don't have a clear, big strategy. Yeah, and I think that's problematic. Is it customers or vendors? Well, suppliers are the customers. I think customers are confused too. But look, let's face it. Traditionally, it's the vendor community that leads the customers down a path. A lot of times that path is not a safe one, right? It's a tough road. I tell you, it's a lot of opportunities. So I think it's still, the economics are, as you point out, the margins are there. I mean, the benefit of cloud is there. So to me, I think everyone's moves to cloud at some point. It's just a matter of time. I do think data is a big wild card. That's again, why I think IBM's making some moves that easy to criticize IBM, but they've got a lot of assets there. Guys, final thoughts, Brian's too. For me, the big thing I want to see is, so Amazon's done great. Microsoft's made money, IBM's made money, basically living in places where a couple of data centers, they're in the US or they're in the UK or something and they could get away with it because they didn't have all the regulatory stuff. They didn't have to be in specific countries. When you've got to deal with 100 and something odd countries and 100 and something odd laws and governments in it, then it's a little bit different. And I think once we start to see those things happen, will they invest in every country? Do the laws change so that those countries don't send data to the US? Then we'll find out if you go to 100 million as opposed to seven, eight, 10 billion or a billion. Yeah, great point there. I mean, so much of the discussion is North America today. And the other piece is there's a real barrier to entry. If you didn't start building this a few years back, it's really too late. So there's not, at least I'm not aware of, another soft layer out there that I can spend, a couple of billion dollars to pick them up. Rackspace was one that was on the table for a while and thought maybe pick up those data centers and it could propel somebody. But there's a trajectory here and it's going to be tough to get in this horse race if you're not really close. Guys, thanks for the time. We did a great job there. A lot of it went over time a little bit. This is theCUBE conversation in Malboro, message the Wikibon headquarters. I'm John Furrier, the Wikibon analyst, breaking down the cloud roundup, breaking down the horses on the track. Thanks for watching.


up in the Alaska Inside Passage, which I thought was really awesome. It's a beautiful country out here. So, hello everyone. Thanks for coming to Seven Habits of Highly Effective Contributors. I am Adrian Otto. I am a Racker. I serve at Rackspace as a Distinguished Architect. I am the chair of the OpenStack Containers Team, which was the precursor to the Magnum Project, which we'll be hearing more about during this conference. I also started the Solum Project back in 2013, and I work on cloud standards. So I have a unique perspective of how OpenStack works. I've been involved ever since the very first design summit in Austin, Texas. I was one of those 75 that were there at the very beginning talking about how to put a pluggable scheduler into NOVA. So I've had the joy and excitement of working with OpenStack for a really long time, and have had the joy of starting two projects in this ecosystem and figured out kind of what works and what doesn't work from a how do you start a project perspective? But also, I've seen a lot of contributors and figured out what works well and what does not work well. So I'm here today to tell you if you wanna be an awesome contributor, there is a formula. So this is my money-back guarantee formula for becoming an awesome contributor in the OpenStack ecosystem. Now, first you gotta recognize, probably half of this room is new, like first time to a summit, how many? Two thirds of the room. Okay, and who has not yet contributed to OpenStack? About half the room. Okay, so you've gotta understand about OpenStack and how it's different. So I'll talk a little bit about the four opens. Everybody understands what OpenSource is. That's a given in today's world. When you take OpenSource to the next level and you start putting your code repositories in things like GitHub so that they're available for people to see your Git commit history, that's called Open Development. You might take a pull request. You might interact with the community a little bit. But that's not enough. You need to go a step further than that and do Open Design, which is what we're doing here at the Design Summit. So we get together as a community, face to face, sit down, figure out how we're gonna design stuff, plan things out. And we do this on a six month interval and we started doing, about a year back, we started doing something called mid-cycle meetups. And I'll talk about mid-cycle meetups a bit as well. So these are kind of like halfway between the Design Summits, each project gets together on its own. And this is unique to this Open Design concept. And if you're doing the Open Design concept, what results from that is Open Community, where you can have not only all of that stuff happening, but also the governance of your projects can be driven by the community as well. So as a PTL in an OpenStack project, I'm elected to lead the project. And if I'm not doing a good job, somebody else can replace me. Code gets into OpenStack by using a voting scheme. So when you submit a contribution, you use a tool called Garrett in order to put your code up into the review. Once it's up in for review, your co-contributors will look at that source code, potentially comment on it, and vote on it. There are two classes of votes. There's the general class of voting where you can vote with a plus one, meaning you think that that code should go in. You can vote with a minus one, indicating that the code should not go in and that additional revisions are necessary, or you can just make a comment with a zero vote to ask a question or to just indicate that you need clarity on something in order to make a decision how to vote on something. And then there's a second class of voting which core reviewers do. They can vote also again with plus one, zero or negative one, but they can also vote plus two or negative two. And I'll talk about those a little bit more in a bit because the minus two vote is a special one. But two core contributors need to vote for something in order for you to approve a merge. So you can't just be a core committer and put source code into open stack. You need to have your code reviewed and two other core reviewers need to agree that that's good software for it to go in. Core reviewers are elected again by the contributors of the project. They vote on who will be added or subtracted as a core viewer. We design, like I mentioned here at the summit and the mid-cycle events and the governance is handled by the technical committee. So all projects that are in open stack as in the projects.yaml file for the open stack project list have a PTL election that is held on a release by release basis. So every six months there's an election. There's a single election and you vote for all your PTLs. And if you've contributed to a project you can vote for the PTL of that project. We also have a board of directors in open stack and they handle the business side of the foundation. Things like the legal aspects of using the trademarks and the high level non-technical aspects of running a foundation. So how do things really happen? So everybody here probably understands the agile development process. The open source development process in just about every open source project I have ever seen is not an agile development process if you're using open design and open community. They are incompatible. So I wanna highlight how these things are different so that you understand why the formula is effective. So first of all, there are no sprints. We use a release technique called a release train. So the clock moves forward and as features get done they get included in releases. So releases are tied only to dates not to feature readiness. So in order for this to work your software has to always be shippable. We also have no card wall. Instead we use a tool called Blueprints which are part of Launchpad to indicate what features we're working on and sometimes we'll use bug tickets to indicate what tasks we're gonna be working on. There is no project manager or scrum master. The only leader we have in an open stack project is the PTL and the PTL will work together with the core reviewers to decide what gets in and as a community you will decide how things get built but there's no, like in an agile process you would have a project manager who would have basically veto power over what things get prioritized and why and that concept is completely absent from what we do here. There's no release manager for an individual project. There is, we have a thing called an integrated release in open stack where we have the 12 projects that are considered part of the integrated release and we kind of test them and release them together and there is a release manager for that but each individual project doesn't have a release manager. So understanding that, where does influence come from? How do you actually get what you want to happen? So the technical committee is this group, so I said there was a board of directors, there's a technical committee and then there's all the individual projects. The technical committee decides when new projects get added and what indications those projects have, what tags are allocated to them but the core reviewers are the ones that decide what the software actually ends up being because they're the ones that are voting on every single contribution that comes in and they as a core reviewer have the ability to essentially veto a contribution by giving it a negative two vote so that it can actually not be merged. PTLs have the power to approve or reject blueprints. So if you have a feature that you want to get into a project, you can propose it as a blueprint and that can be discussed by the team in either an IRC meeting or at one of the meetups and it can be approved for both its direction and for its design independently. So typically the PTL will approve a feature, a blueprint by setting its direction and then whoever proposed the feature or whoever likes the feature and wants to work on it they come up with a design proposal that's submitted as an attachment to the blueprint and then the blueprint gets approved based on its design. So these things have a life cycle where you can control what you're working on and how it's prioritized and what releases they're tied to. Okay, so one way to get your new feature in or your change in is to go through a blueprint process. Some of the larger project like NOVA have a spec process. A spec is a kind of a contribution that you make where you put essentially a text file in a very specific format that indicates what it is at a high level that you want to do. Another way to do it is you actually skip the spec writing process and just write a patch.  If there is no existing bug or blueprint you can actually create your own bugs and link them in your commit back to the bug.  Okay, and if you do that your commit when it goes up for review will be linked to the bug. So you can put the actual feature in the bug. And the reason why that's important is because when the ptl goes to tag a release you'll get credit for that contribution. It'll be listed in the release notes. So the fastest way to get code in is just to submit a patch, have the core viewers vote on it and if it's small enough it'll get in. But if what you want to do is really involved that's pretty risky because it's likely to get kicked back as a minus two does not fit in which case you're either throwing it out or starting over. So if it's little thing just put it up and see what happens. If it's gonna be a big thing you probably wanna make a blueprint, you probably wanna make a spec, you probably wanna discuss it with the team first, get a collaborative indication that this is the direction the project really wants to go and then start making iterative progress towards that. Okay, so I mentioned the negative two vote a couple of times. So this is a special thing. Why don't I have you guys come in? There's seats open up in the front. A negative two is a special kind of a vote. So any core viewer can vote negative two on your patch. If that happens that vote will stay even if you revise the patch. So normally if there's a minus one on a review and you submit a revision that you changed whatever somebody asked you to change and you put a revision up, all the negative ones get erased and you get a clean slate and you start over. If there's a negative two on there, it's sticky. So even if you do a revision, it doesn't get cleared out. And the only one who can take a negative two vote off is the one who put it on. So this is something that we tend to use very occasionally and it only really is appropriate in cases where somebody has contributed something without talking to anybody and it really doesn't make any sense or there's a serious security vulnerability that a particular reviewer wants to be sure we address or we know that this is gonna break something because there are other things coming behind it. Those are the reasons why we might wanna use a negative two. All right, so you all came to hear money back guaranteed formula and I'm gonna give it to you right now. So the first is you need to be on IRC. Every project in the OpenStack ecosystem has an IRC channel. The IRC channels are logged and they are where you have all of your ongoing discussion, where your team actually collects. So make sure that your computer is set up so that when you turn it on, it connects automatically to IRC, it automatically puts you into your IRC channel and you're idling there all the time. And so if somebody doesn't mention of you in the channel, that's their way of kind of calling you up and saying, hey, we need your attention. So your chat client is how people are going to interact with you. We really don't use a lot of email back and forth individually between contributors. We do have the developer's mailing list and each project has a, I'll talk about that in a sec, but we don't have like a one-to-one communication outside of IRC. IRC in the channel is where you should do all your discussion about your projects. Second, every team in OpenStack, which includes every project in OpenStack has a regularly recurring meeting, typically these happen on a weekly interval. You need to show up to these meetings religiously every single time and you need to be present. When you start the meeting, we start a thing called Meetbot, which is something that logs and takes, like helps us keep the minutes essentially for the meeting because everyone is logged and archived. If you say one line, if you just type one thing in IRC during the meeting, you will be recorded as an attendee. So that's the minimum. Show up and just put one line that you attended that meeting, but don't just do that. You have to really pay attention to what's going on so that you have an idea of what is changing in that project. That is your most up-to-date, reliable way to learn what's happening. All the announcements are gonna be happening there. All of the discussion, if you have patches that require team discussion, that's where the discussion is gonna happen and on a formal basis. So definitely, definitely attend these meetings regularly and treat it as a priority.  Third, use the mailing list. So you've gotta read the mailing list, particularly any project that you're involved with has gonna have a topic tag. A topic tag is like in brackets the name of your project. So openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org is the email address that we all share. And everybody has access to everybody else's email that's sent and received on this list. But how you can filter it so that you can only subscribe to a certain topic. So for example, if I don't wanna read 50 emails a day from OpenStack mailing list, I might only wanna read the two or three that are my project. Then I would set up a filter in my mailman configuration when I subscribe to the mailing list so that I only see stuff about Magnum and Solum and Keystone and other things that I happen to be working on right now. But I might wanna ignore things that are going on in the other projects. Another thing I will do is set up a filter of like things to accept. So rather than using the filtering feature entirely in mailman, I'll get all the messages but I'll do my own filtering and I'm saying if the topic tag is Magnum or Solum or whatever, then leave that in my inbox. Or if it has the keyword, this word or that word or this word or that word, then keep it in my inbox. Otherwise, go ahead and filter that out. So that's the filtering strategy that I've used pretty successfully. Participate on each thread that goes out. If you have something meaningful to say, don't just think it to yourself. Make sure that you make a reply on there and that you get that recorded. If somebody's asking questions on the mailing list, take some time to answer those. Be present. And keep in mind that, I took a poll here. We've got people from four different continents at least here in this room. Not all of us have English as the first language. Some of us struggle in order to communicate in this language and that can be very apparent in stuff that's going up on our developer mailing lists. Keep that in mind that these are not native English speakers and take the time that it requires to understand what they're actually talking about rather than dismissing them because of language barriers. Okay, fourth is do code reviews.  It doesn't have to be a ton of time. It doesn't have to be two hours a day. It can be 10 minutes a day. Whatever it is, allocate some time where you look at reviews every day. And the reason for this is not just so that you're helping do the voting and indicate what should be merged or not merged. Part of the reason why is because you're gonna become a better programmer by seeing what all these other awesome developers are doing. Another reason why is you're gonna know if you're actually reading the full review queue every single day, you're gonna see almost everything that goes into the project. So you'll have a very, very acute picture in your mind of the current state of the code because you know what's going on in that code because you've been seeing every single commit that's going through. For me, doing reviews for two projects that have maybe 4,000 commits or 4,000 patch sets combined, I've probably reviewed half of them in doing this an hour to two a day as a PTO. So I would think if you could allocate 30 minutes a day maybe to do code reviews, that would be huge. And this is how you, I talk about influence, right? What's the formula for influence? You have to be participating in the project. People need to know your name. You need to be in the IRC channel. You need to be on the mailing list. You need to be present in code reviews and be, I haven't even got to contribution yet. We're just talking about reviewing other people's code and voting and making meaningful indications of how that code can be improved. So there's this like, when a first time developer comes to OpenStack and he or she submits a patch, they get like this welcome note on their first commit. Like, welcome to OpenStack. Thanks for contributing your first patch. And always the first thing that happens is a negative one vote. Always, I guarantee it.  My code got in. That will not happen. But what will happen is you're gonna get a negative one vote, which does not mean the same thing as if you got a negative one vote on GitHub. We all understand how the GitHub tool chain works and essentially gets down to a go or no go vote. And if it's minus one in GitHub, it means we hate your code and it's not getting it. And if it's plus one, it's like, awesome job. It's getting it. Whereas here in OpenStack, a negative one just means we just wanna see more from you as a revision to this patch. So don't see it as a negative. See it as an opportunity to make your commit fit the style and expectations of the team that you're working with. So you will get a negative one. You'll get another negative one. You'll get another negative one. Most new contributors go through about four or five revisions on a single patch set, even a trivial patch set before it's gonna be merged. That's normal. And if you're doing code reviews, like I say, then only take a day or two to get your code in. When somebody votes on your code, you're gonna get an email from Garrett saying what the vote is. Look at that stuff right away and be sure to follow it all up. Okay, I talked about being constructive.  A plus one vote with no comment, if you didn't actually read all the code and really understand what it's doing, has no value at all. Don't do that. Don't just vote plus one on something. That is not involving you in the community. Vote negative one with a thoughtful suggestion for how this can be improved. If it's trivia, fine, skip the negative one, right? But if you find a meaningful way to improve the code, go ahead and vote negative one on it and suggest what should be changed. Even if you see plus two votes on something and you're just a regular fly by guy, that's fine. But if you've got a good suggestion, go ahead and negative one vote it. Don't worry about contradicting the other team members.  Don't worry. Go ahead and make those things. So your job as a reviewer is to make the code better, to get it in as quick, to help your contributors, your team get code through as fast as possible. And you do that by making constructive votes. And again, same with the email list, right? Keep an open mind. People's code has sometimes comments in it, error messages don't make any sense because they were translated from Russian or whatever, right? So, is that me? Oh my gosh. It is not. It's you. Okay, bug tickets. So I talked about bug tickets a little bit. So, bug tickets are not necessarily defects. A bug ticket is something that needs to be worked on. It is a task level thing. That is me that time. Geez, I'm gonna turn it off. So, it is a task level thing that needs to be done. So I talked about blueprints earlier. Blueprints are for features, like big, hunky things that need to be done. A bug ticket is for something trivial. Usually I use bug tickets to track things like technical debt. Like, yeah, we're gonna merge this code. Like, say I'm reviewing some code and I see something that I don't really like about it, but I really want this code to get in. And we need to move on. But I'm willing to take on some technical debt. So what I'll do in that point is I'll say, okay, I'm gonna vote plus one on this patch. I'm gonna vote plus two on this patch. But I'm gonna open a bug ticket against it that is tagged as tech debt. That says, I would really like somebody to fix this so that it has better error handling in this case. Or I would really like it if it were re-implemented in this other way. And it's fine that I have this as a first iteration of the contribution, but I would like it to be better in this other way. So a bug ticket can be used for that. A bug might be marked as a defect with a severity level or it might be marked as something called a wish list. So if it's a wish list thing and it's got a tag on it for tech debt, that's great. Because new contributors, like half of this room will have somewhere to go to look for things that are relatively easy to do where they can just start making an impact right away. So use bug tickets. When you make a commit, always try to tie your commit to something. Tie it to a blueprint by using the word blueprint and its name in the commit message or use closes-bug colon space number. And you're either linked to a bug or you're linked to a blueprint for every single commit. If you do that, all of your contributions will be tracked and it'll be getting credit for it and it'll be very easy to indicate to whoever you're reporting back to what you're actually doing. So it makes it very easy to quantify your contributions if all of them are linked in this way. If you just have something coming out of left field and you make a patch for it and it's not linked back to anything, chances are people are gonna ask you, what is this? So don't do that. So you can open a bug ticket and link it and that whole process takes about 45 seconds. You do not need to wait for a bug to be triaged in order to link it to your commit. Number six, use blueprints. So when you have an idea for a feature, you open a blueprint, a blueprint has a title, it has a description, it has a place to tie like a specification document and it has like some workflow stuff. What its approval status is, whether it's in discussion, whether it's what state of implementation it's in, all this sort of stuff is in the blueprint. So you can open one. You don't need to be a project admin of any kind or open a blueprint, you can go ahead and open it. You can indicate who the approver is so you can set that yourself. Best practice there is just to put the name, the launchpad name of the PTL in the approver field and when you do that the PTL is gonna get an email in his inbox or her inbox and it's gonna say, there's a new blueprint so that's the way that you kind of indicate them that it's there and then you would go into your agenda for your IRC meetings. So back in, like number one of the seven habits was use IRC, right? Number two was attend the meetings. So if you're attending the meetings, the agenda for every team meeting in OpenStack is published on the web in advance and it's on the wiki so anybody can update the agenda. And most project leaders are very liberal about what they allow on the agenda. So you can actually go into the agenda and put your item, there's usually a whole section in the agenda for where you put your item in order to work on it. And once you get that on the agenda for the IRC team meeting, you've got your blueprint, you've got like some discussion about how you wanna do something and why and then the team meeting comes up, you get on IRC, you make your case, everybody talks about it and the PTL either approves it or tells you, let's go a different direction and here's how, all right. You can also go into blueprints and find stuff to do. So I told you about bugs, right? Bugs are a good place for new contributors to go and find stuff to work on.  So if you really have figured out the contribution process and now you wanna start developing new code, this is how you do it. You go into the blueprints, you can set the assignee to yourself. One thing that's important about this, okay. When somebody owns a blueprint, it does not mean nobody else is allowed to work on it. It means that person who owns the blueprint is responsible for reporting back to the contributors at the team meetings about the status of that item. You might have four or five people working on the same blueprint at the same time, different patches that are associated with the same blueprint at the same time. They're not all gonna be marked as the owner. One of them is gonna be marked as the owner. The one who's marked as the owner just needs to see that that feature gets done. He or she does not need to do all the work, okay. Number seven, write code and consistently write code. Your code does not need to be Python code. It does not need to be Go code. It can be as simple as documentation that improves the setup instructions for the software. Those kinds of contributions, in my opinion, are equally valuable to a new, I don't know, refactoring the plug-in mechanism for your backend software. It can be in the form of testing. So if you wanna use the software in a new and exciting way and nobody's using it that way yet, go try it and report back what you found from it. Put that result on the mailing list. Have a discussion about it. That is a way to contribute that is not measured in terms of commits, but it's equally valuable.  So the best OpenStack contributors that who I have ever seen make at least one commit every single day. Might not be a major thing, but it's just one thing. He or she will pick out a bug, do a quick fix, get it up. So there's always maybe four or five things, depending how fast these things are actually merging. You always have a few patches in flight at any given time.  If you are only doing this part-time in your free cycles, then you can't do a patch every day, but you could do a patch say every week. But fix a goal for yourself where you're doing this on a regular cadence, not just one contribution and I'm done, but measured continued contributions. Now, I already talked about linking about patch size. So there is an ideal patch size. If you go off and develop a feature and it's 10,000 lines of code and you contribute it across seven different patches, I guarantee you're gonna have problems. Because that code is impossible to review because the patches are just too big, they're too complicated. Instead of going off and working on something and getting it to work and then taking that working thing and barfing it up onto the review, instead of doing that, start your work little by little, small patch by small batch by small patch and have the reviewers take this in bite-sized pieces, ideally 400 lines of change or less per patch. Now, not every change can be done in 400 lines. But that should be your aim. You should be aiming for something relatively small. Why 400 lines? Well, 400 lines is about the amount of code that an ordinary core reviewer or an ordinary reviewer can look at for about 20 minutes.  Any brain surgeons? Okay, well, nobody can tell me that I'm wrong. But there's a system in your brain called the limbic system. This is the lizard brain, the most basic part of your brain. And you've got your frontal lobes, which are doing all of your reasoning.  Is there anyone gonna eat me? Am I hungry right now? Do I need to reproduce? These are the kinds of questions that your limbic system is asking. And this happens every 20 minutes. So you get this interruption and concentration. Well, so that's why people say, well, we have a short attention span. Our children can only pay attention for 20 minutes. Well, there's a biological reason why they are only paying attention for 20 minutes. Well, 400 lines of code, it's about how much you can review in 20 minutes.   We're all busy doing stuff, right?  Something is gonna happen that's gonna take you off track and you might not get to the point where you can vote on the patch. So keep the patch small. All right, so let's review the formula. You get an IRC and you stay on it all the time. You show up at the IRC meetings every single week, even if you don't have anything to say, but I hope you do have something to say. Use the mailing list. If somebody has a question, do your best to answer. Review code, try to do it every day. Allocate an amount of time that you can afford every single day to review code. Use the bug tickets, both in creating them to document what needs to be done. What is our technical debt? What are our defects? But also for consuming them, work through bugs to find things to do so that you can be helpful. Use the blueprints when it comes time to build new features and contribute on a regular cadence. If you do these seven things, you will become a core reviewer on your project. It is only a matter of time. And once you're a core reviewer on your project, you will have a whole nother level of influence over where the project goes. Remember I told you the agile development process is different, right? There's a project manager. The project manager basically gets to call the shots on where things go. In open source, the influence is mainly wielded by the core reviewers. So core reviewers are the currency for steering open stack. And this is the formula for becoming a valued member of the team so that you become a core reviewer. If you do this, you're gonna have a say. And you're not gonna be at as high a risk. It's like people when they use open stack, they're like, I got this project, I wanna use it in production, but I'm really worried about the upstream because they might do something that's gonna screw me up in the off side. And I don't have any protection against them doing something insane. Well guess what, you do have protection. If you've built a little bit of karma up and you're doing these behaviors, you have a seat at the table. You are part of the force steering the steering wheel. This is how you get it done. So I'm sure you will have questions. I will take your questions on the subject of what contributors should do in order to maximize their influence in open stack. And also take questions on what project leaders should do and how they should arrange their projects to get maximum impact. Questions? It will be available. I confess I have not uploaded them. So can I give that to you yet? But I will be sure that I at least put it on Slideshare. Slideshare slash Adrian Otto will at least have it. There's probably an official place I'm supposed to put these things. And I don't know, I haven't read that email. Yes. Oh wait, I forgot a very important thing. Can we ask the questions into the mic? Sorry. Okay, is this thing on? Oh good. You were talking earlier about how to link your contributions back to bugs or blueprints or what have you. I figured I would just point out that there is a published document that outlines best practices for commit messages and what they should say and how you link them back. You can find it with some fairly simple googling. Yeah, it's in the open stack wiki. Thanks. They deal with that. Yeah, that's where you get the syntax for doing the linking. Cool. More questions? Sorry, just a single one. When you say earlier when you plus one, you usually have to put a comment on it. When you simply agree with a comment, for example, and it doesn't need any explanation why you're actually plus oneing it. If you're plus oneing, you don't have to comment. But what I'm saying is that's not buying you influence. The goal is how do you become an effective contributor? Simply voting plus one on something is not necessarily making you more valuable. Making a suggestion for how to make something better or how to get it in faster, that's what's gonna make you valuable. So that's the point I was trying to make. Yes, most of the time if I vote plus two on something, I don't write anything. I just, that's okay. But when I'm being helpful and I'm negative one voting something, that's when you have to put the comment in. Never negative one something without actually a helpful comment. Right, okay. More questions? Hurry, yeah. About doing the IRC, I'm kinda curious. I've been doing it a little while now. I'm not, I did it on the court components, so I'm curious in order to mix, and you also mentioned language barrier, why isn't there more use of video conferencing and video chatting? Because we're all offset by time zones. And I realize that, but I'm just thinking that isn't there some way to include a video chat in the process? Our old team did that, now we're trying to move into using this formula, if you will, and we're struggling not having that once in a while being able to do a video chat, it's nicer. There are some committees, like the Def Court committee, who's tried that to some extent, and it has limited utility because, mostly because of the time zone problem, because we've got people who it's two in the morning, so they can get on an IRC, occasionally at two in the morning, but they're not gonna get on a video call. And we literally have contributors in every single time zone in the world, and so it's impossible to find, we'll like alternate our team meetings so that we follow a little bit of daylight and get more people on every other week. But yeah, it's really hard for that reason to find a time when everybody can actually participate. If you just happen to have everyone in one time zone, that works really, really well, or just a couple of relatively close time zones that works pretty well. But I'm not gonna get on a video call late, late night when I've got kids in the house, it's not gonna happen, right? All right, well I think I'm out of time. Thanks everyone for attending. I'll be around for questions for a little bit. Thanks.