Hello and welcome everybody. This is our talk. Plan your learnings. Can friendly user testing after SOP become a common practice. These are considerations by my colleague Nishi Gutsich-San and by myself Philipp Armann. We are both engineers at ARDIT. Our form is Advanced Driver Information Technology. It's a joint venture at Robert Bosch GmbH in Germany and Densu-San to the cooperation in Japan. We are very happy that we got the chance to talk here at the Automotive Linux Summit. It's our first trial to make a pre-recorded session and I hope you will enjoy what we have to say today. Let me also not forget to say thanks to all the sponsors of this Automotive Linux Summit, especially also to the Linux Foundation and to the Automotive Great Linux Project. At the beginning of the presentation, let me first of all give you an idea on how this whole talk is structured. I split this talk in three major groups. First one is called BASE. The basic ideas of IVI systems is presented, how software for IVI system looks like, then how safety ECUs are still treated today and how both of them are influenced by updates getting into the field, into the common sense. The second part is the change area. It tells you a little bit on how nowadays cars get connected, how influence into the automotive market can get over from other industries, like the web service industry or also mobile industry, and this will have impact on how our products look into the future. So for this, the consequent third part will start with giving you an idea on triggered learnings, validated learnings, a first use case on how to provide log information and then a very detailed view on the ELISA project use case of telltale handling in a Linux-based cluster. At the end, we will give a summary and have hopefully some room for discussions. But first, let us have a few words on who we are. As said in the beginning, my name is Philipp Armann. I'm currently manager at the ARTIC GmbH, the German entity of the ARTIC Corporation, and as said, it's joint venture company of the Bosch GmbH and Anzo Corporation in Japan. In the last five years, my main work was in the field of project leader before I had three years as a test team leader. Also, I spent four years as hardware and software engineer. This provides me with an overall experience for more than 12 years in the field of automotive. And, yeah, taking my time before I joined ARTIC, also a lot of Linux expertise from university and so on, which gives me over 15 years in this area. Since last year and very beginning, I'm also active member of the ELISA project, which also influence a little bit of the talk here today, and I'm former member of Autosign and Linaro. Additionally, I'm an open source enthusiast. I try to use open source wherever possible. And, yeah, due to my background and the many years was added, I really loved Japan. And as I'm always interested in new technologies and methodologies, I get to know Kaizen and they believe this also influence the talk here today a bit. Now, I want to hand over to my colleague Nishiguchi-san, so that he also gets a chance to introduce himself. Thank you, Philip. Hello. Let me introduce myself. I'm Na-Filo Nishiguchi belonging to the AD-80 Corporation at Japan. And currently, I'm working on Linux project leader. So far, I have developed IVI system, especially audio part from low-layer, like a sound driver to upper layer like UI application. Through such a development, I spent 12 years as a developer, two years as an architect. And some part of myself is still architect in AD-80 Japan site. I have been in the automotive industry for about 14 years, developing on Linux for about 8 years. And recently, I'm working for the functional processor adaptation in AD-80. Now, I'm an AGL, automotive-grade Linux and ERISA member. Okay, then I will hand over to Philip again. Okay, so then let's start our journey. So the base of our journey would be to get the knowledge on how IVI systems typically still look like, also how recent ECUs in the field of safety get in and also how updates after SOP influence these products a lot. As I bring a lot of experience from the field of in-vehicle infotainment, so IVI products, I always had the impression that we treat these products really in the same way as we treat engine or brake systems. So we have a very heavy process. We spent all effort with highest quality and all possible measures to reach the point where we have no reset, no freeze, full stability and we got rid of any kind of issues. Of course, we are way towards perfection as needed because the car should work properly until the end of the life. And this can be 10 or more years, much more than a smartphone would give us or television software. And also here we are already used to see resets. An IVI product should not reset and nevertheless it could happen because also we target perfection, we never be perfect completely. To give you an example, I observed the first reset where I see that the IV system turned off and on again only 6 years after operation. And funny enough, a week after I experienced it again and after this no longer. And it was totally clear that this reset was there but I never reported. So never an engineer will get the feeling that there was something wrong, something could be missed and something which could be improved for the future. So I think it's valid to ask the question how many more perfect IVI systems will be out there on the street having a reset and no engineer will ever get to know it. And even if we just think about perfection in an IVI system, we have even stronger demands of course in functional safe operation for safety ECUs. Here the safety and integrity standards already tells us that the system is functionally safe, maybe not intrinsically safe and even standards will be argued that we do not expect failures as we took all possible failure measures with safe state and other options. The strict process with a lot of evidences also assumed that there is no failure can happen. But can we really say that these assumptions are still correct? The world is getting more complex, so the past there were split ECUs and nowadays these ECUs get centralized. Bayer Metal software stack with a thousand lines of code suddenly gets into Autosar from Autosar to Autosar adaptive and may end up in a full Linux stack. We use hypervisors, OS cells, containers, much more than the traditional artists and this is really a change to what happened in the last years. Nevertheless a safety standard or safety integrity standard still treat these products in the same way. I also wanted to give an example outside of the IVI or outside the automotive world which shows how small design floors can make a fundamental change. So Boeing wanted to be competitive with Airbus when bringing in the 737 Mac series. They followed their processors, they made considerations, but there was a little peace which didn't behave expected and really caused a lot of incidents. Even if a standard is followed, even if complexity is treated and even if perfection was also in mind. So this is something also where updates were needed and just these days after a long time Boeing was able to get the information and to get an update and let the Boeing 737 Macs fly again. Another part, even if you had functional safety, you still may have connected ECUs, you may have still access. And here I wanted to give an example on newspaper article which says that hackers found ways to exploit automotive software and were able to overtake cars. So this means security updates are necessary because security exploits may force OTA updates of cars, especially for connected ECUs as I just said. There are much more ideas where you can have field updates. So one part where I read their long way and it was a nice article for Hyundai how they enabled update over the air to bring in new functionality for able to deliver security updates, also demand for it. But also if you are not doing and you have a connected car, you can see this from TechCrunch. There have been bugs in there that hackers remotely control and Mercedes-Benz car. A more positive example is what a hacker could find in the software. So this hacker was not actually hacking the full car for doing harm, but he was looking into what he could get as information out of the car. And Tesla was providing hints that they introduced 5G hotspot software update parts in their latest software. So this gives you an idea and a summary on the update after SAP section and how this influence our modern connected devices, centralized ECUs. Of course the one top item are the security vulnerabilities. These should be there in no time and much faster and it may not be sufficient to go into workshop anymore to get a regular software update. Operating system updates are another field. So there could be someone forcing you to do an update. There could be something that you just want to address new functionality. You want to have for example some bug fixes in which were not crucial issues, but you figure out that the user experience is much more relived and improved. And of course one traditional part is always a map update. I guess this is something which 10 years back you may have done with CD or DVD, then later on maybe by USB storage or SD card storage. And recently you most likely connect the ECU and may be able to update over the air. And this is an update of your device after SAP. And even if you have checked carefully, you don't know if new issues come up. Last part of course would be the most brilliant one when you really want to deliver new features as we could just slide back on what Tesla did where they introduced a new feature on 5G hotspot by a software which is not usable yet, but still already deployed. So this also brings us directly to the second part where we say what's the change which comes in. Where nowadays cars get connected and where we should also take a glimpse to other industries, other industries which we focus on our web services and mobile industries. So let's get a look into this. I saw what's very nice to look at is what we already find in the car. Emergency location services or e-call is something most of you will most likely know in case you have a crash or so. There is a call and this call will go to service center and they will ask you everything is fine. And due to the location services they know where you are. So even if you're not talk they can inform the ambulance or other parts. This works already with the mobile connection so there need to be a modem in there which can call. This directly goes along with data plans and if you already have a data plan maybe you think about apps and connected apps is nothing new. I put here a link to if you scan the QR code what it worked on in 2014. So six years back was our first connected product and from connected apps. So next step to also provide the chance to install apps so you go for the app stores which you can also find in the first cars. Then if you anyway are in the connection fields where you have bluetooth connection, you have Wi-Fi connection, you have a lot of sensors in the car. It's just natural also to connect to other cars and to the infrastructure. So you have car to car, car to x communication. You may provide information on traffic signs detected, communicate with other cars, one euro traffic jams or other. And hard thing this comes with cloud computing and processing where you really upload data and receive data also during your way in the car. And then as you have the mobile services as we could see also again with the Tesla power there is the Wi-Fi and access points. These can also just be used to share media across the car from a device to the IVI system, from the IVI system to other parts and devices. So this is also what comes in. And looking into this feature set, it sounds a lot like smartphones and they also started small. So I took the first smartphone kind of thing where not everybody was talking about smartphone with a Nokia communicator. This was my first experience for something more than a feature phone back in 1996. I was really impressed to see this what I called more a computer at this time in a pocket size format. And then it took a long away until we really became to something which is called smartphone. And well the first iPhone where Apple calls itself that Apple reinvent the phone in 2008 was most and best iPod ever seen. They really made it true that they said this is only the beginning. And what a phone involved over the time, you can see when you just think that you may have taken up your smartphone and just check the QR code which is up there. Here. I didn't want to spend much more on the parts how cars get connected. I once more want to stress we cannot deny field updates of the car. We have cars already connected and much heavier data exchange will come over the air. And I said we should take a look and glimpse to other industries. They have a much better way already today in dealing with updates and also how they plan their learnings. I took a very minimal slide, but I found it impressive enough to explain a little bit about the web services and how all things get in there, especially because you typically don't even see one feature which I really love is this split or a B testing. So basic of concept of this is to make a change. For example, to web page and some users will see what's rendered web page and the other users will see a slightly different page. So I put a link here also so that you can read a little more afterwards. Basic idea here was say comparing click rates. So here the green icon was giving much more clicks with 72% compared to just the blue learn more with 52%. This is also related to microchanges, faster iterations and before making a full user interface with all the considerations and so on.  So you come with an idea on the feature. You bring this micro feature in and you already try it with a friendly user testing or a very limited number of customers. Then also to get hidden features in. It's not really hidden features. It's some software residing on a server, but it can also be operated. It can operate in the background so you don't see it. And just at a certain point of time, if you gained a lot of confidence that it's not causing any other side effect on the system, you put it live, you make it go live. And here I guess that's a little bit also how Hacker found the Tesla 5G thing. It's a web service, but most likely Tesla has learned from this. Next slide I get into the mobile industry. And you also spend only one major slide. So what do we see there? Mobile industry is much more familiar to most of us. We know about beta testing. You can, for example, sign up and make your Pixel phone a beta phone. You see that stability is already quite good at an early point of time. And you can also use beta tests to be on the tip when it comes to app development by migrating an Android version. So this is all the learning and the ideas to just speed up development. You get feedback from users in an early stage. You help them to develop new things and you can make your product better. Then the simpler way without active positive patient or signing up by users is just feedback requests. This can be, for example, just the ratings. I put one screenshot here on how the call quality is. You may see this on a lot of your services, which you also operate where you work with tools. And it's very similar to also rating system where you say, yeah, this app is good. You look into crash reports, which is coming in and you can also provide surveys. And for us, I guess this part is getting normal. And here's thinking on how normal this is on your car. So I never heard about someone who was offering beta testing to users within the car. We just said, well, you know, you want to get the beta of this or how was the call quality. I want to update this one in the car also selling that you can rate this product because they come with your car. It will be more indirect reviews or something like this. One use part, which I also wanted to bring is from nine to five Google. This I found quite interesting to read was that also developers should disclose crash reports and that they also inform the users so that if you're not doing a proper way of crash reports and bringing this in and also providing spec to Google to a certain extent, you may be even removed from Play Store. So you can see that here crash reports is a fundamental part of the work. That may also mean that androids gets very strong. And talking about Android, Android is also entering the automotive market. So mobile industry took its chance, took its knowledge from all the smartphones and try to get into new market with automotive. So these new players enter the car and I took a screenshot here or a picture from the Polestar. Polestar 2, maybe I'm not sure. This includes Android at the first cooperation by Google where they also bring a full Android stack in there. This hopefully doesn't sound surprising. I think a lot more Android products are ramping up here. And here I'm not sure if Google planned their learnings, but they got a lot of experience upfront. So taking a look way back five to six years, we see that Android entered the car already with Android Auto. And I think this is something which we all integrated with our IVI products. So CarPlay, Android Auto are used in a lot of products. It already provides an entry device or smaller device also made higher premium devices with Google look and feel, usage of apps and it already enables people to see Android devices on their IVI system. Even if there is an underlying other rest and it make them used to expect also an Android in their car. So if you are these days surprised how strong Android grows, you may have considered this also four or five years back when the first Android Auto was getting into market. I made a statement here. I said which learnings have been planned since this announcement. So have you prepared to see this change of Android? What Android means to your products? How you can compete? How your software will compete? Also what infrastructure Android brings, what demands will come? And if you haven't done, maybe now would be a good time to also say what are your assumptions on how the story will go on and how to prove these assumptions. Now we successfully covered the base part, the changes which we see to the base of products and we can enter the consequence which is the details on the learnings which we can trigger and how we should share the learnings which we gain to remain competitive. And this also includes the part where we got the main idea from and this was actually not from the traditional software product but from a completely different market. So plant learning or also validated learning is a strong element in the book The Lean Startup by Eric Rees. It's very interesting because it gives you an idea how to get faster products and that whenever you take business, so not software but business that's why I said it's different area where the idea comes from is that you shouldn't wait until you learn something by the hard way at the end. It's basically often taken as a good story into something where you want to hide your failures. So from failure in this case means from what you originally considered as a good product where you never saw that it may fail and typically you just do a post mortem analysis so you wait until something happened. You were surprised and they say yeah but at least we learned something out of it and here you should trigger and see that you made progress, that you validate whatever your learnings you plan and I think this becomes a little bit more obvious when we go to further use cases. But before we can look into use case we should first of all see which levels of information and potential friendly user testing exist. The most obvious one with the lowest impact to a product with not even being connected can be the inspection during the workshop. So if you don't want to spend a modem into your car you can still read error memory information that you can just put some base logs in there and this is just common. So here you could collect data and inform that this should be forwarded from the workshop to the OE down the road to the BSP developer. If you don't want to wait for the workshop you could give it a try with the QR code. You've seen two or three already in this presentation and I guess you're so much used to QR code scanning so this could be something which you can also place into an IVI system and just say well I found this bar, here's the code, scan it and get in log information. Then you could also consider direct communication if you already have a modem in their data plan so you could use some bytes of this data plan to have even seamless upload of logs without user interaction. If things are hidden this may not always be the thing which people like. So for this it may be worse to ask also for approval so that people become active participants in this and are really friendly users testing because they signed to be there part in this area is also to respect data privacy statements and data privacy of some certain countries. I know Germany is very strict on data privacy, a lot of rules apply here so be careful and watch information you upload and what profiles you create if you don't ask users for their acceptance on this. And one important part is also this all implies there's something where you need to learn and this says your product is not perfect as we may have seen it in the first slides. So we need to get a culture to say we still target to make a product as good before but we should accept an imperfect world and here some way to accept imperfect world would be to announce the try features for free if you don't pay for something your acceptance on smaller issues may be much higher than if you paid a lot of money for it. Another way how to motivate people could also be that you ask for surveys and to have a motivation in there is that you can win a voucher that could be something small like a cap or just some stickers or you get a car cleaning voucher or something like this. And last element here is also to see if we saw the Android Auto getting into the car if we see how people are used to certain elements maybe IVI system will on the long run anyway be much more similar to smartphones than to brake or engine control. All this said I guess it's time to rephrase our initial fire and forget policy and perfection at the point of release. I guess before SOP IVI products will no longer be treated as engine and brake systems so we can rephrase it maybe to IVI products can be more seen as a spice level phone and I guess we still will dedicate our efforts to perfection until SOP but now as we know updates will come in we will not stop there but as we have the connected cars we also want to overcome the last parts which we say in the no idea on when the reset happens so we should change the last statement in here and say we plan our learnings to figure out the cause of the issues for example resets and are able to receive logs. However in order to be able to receive logs we will need a fundamental change in the way we collaborate and the way we share information and this is the part not about trigger learnings but we need to share them so we should make data available along the line meaning if we have an OE information should not remain there issue logs trace logs and information which can be there should go for service provider centrally stored and then be forwarded for issue analysis and user preference analysis and so on so all these potential learnings you can make a B testing and others to the respective supplier or whoever will need it I want to show it to you in the field of a Linux product also in the next slide so if we take this card from before there will be four main elements I come more from the lowest layer I embedded guy originally so I see a BSP is very important and I know we are trying to build platforms we try to use kernel wherever we can to be the same for multiple products for multiple releases and to maybe migrate to an aversion but take our learnings from one generation to the other similar we would do with middleware updates would say basically the octo layer and we take also here update after update and it's more reuse and a completely new development from one generation to the other so this means potential issues which we find in one generation may be a learning for the next one also technologies like USB and smartphone elements will not change too much of course the smartphone itself yes but the interface is how they used not so this may also help you for one generation to the other here this is typically maybe with already with two teams so the embedded guy, the base platform team not being directly the same one as the ones working really on the BSP the BSP may also come from silicon vendor and then we are at the tier one project team which will take a base platform and develop the first applications on top so here is a third party involved and it could even be different suppliers different tier ones and so on the full product will end up at the OE with a lot of customizations maybe some of them will also be the product team but at least the final product will get out on the OE side with a full customization and the OE is also the one who will receive the log information if any even the debug message which we build and also so it's good that we have them we could figure out things before as a people we need to get away how the logs will end up here with the embedded guys because they also take a lot of work and stability at the learnings so this said I want to conclude my part you got a good view on how products have to change what demands we put to car connection that maybe we will reach a point of time where information is available in a collaborative style from OE down to a SOC vendor and how important this could be will be explained a little more in the last part of the presentation which Nishikuchi-san will take over here and explain you for the Lisa use case about the next let me explain example of a Linux based safety product the Eliza community and the Asia community are currently collaborating on the realization of the instrument cluster on pure Linux this collaboration is discussed in the Eliza automotive working group in this session I will use the materials shown on this page which were used at the September 2020 Eliza workshop both materials can be found at the links so if you are interested could you please refer to them from this link at first I would briefly explain the use case in instrument cluster a telltale is a lamp typically found on the instrument panel of the vehicle as shown in the picture in right hand side such lamp warns of a sheet of unknown use doors open, lack of engine oil and gasoline and so on and Eliza telltale has a following characteristics it's not extremely safety critical typically telltale is A through B in ISO 26262 terms timing requirements are not as severe as with engine control software it's interesting content for tier 1 and OEMs and an opportunity to cooperate between Eliza and AGL and AGL has a reference hardware and telltale demonstration software these can be used at the starting point of discussion and activity in Eliza Hansen, I'd like to talk about the original architecture design of the AGL telltale here is an expert of the AGL architecture design functional safety and non-functional safety are isolated by the hardware the blue part on the left is achieved on the non-safety side using rhinance the green part on the right side is on the safety side using the RDOS on the rhinox side the telltale is drawn based on the status or information of the other ECU received via the CAN communication and this is monitored on the safety side if the safety monitor detects an abnormality in the telltale graphic part in the screen it is processed to shift to a safety state this safety state is depend on the OEM specification for the fundamental understanding the essence of the telltale system here is a diagram with only what is necessary for essence again, the design concept of the system is to check and monitor the drawing on the unsafe rhinance side for any anomalies by the safety side in summary, the setups of the AGLs are here rhinance will do a lot of rendering in the typical workloads this typical work include the general IVI system features such as the navigation guidance, music playback and carplay or android art as well as the meter drawing rhinance is treated as unsafe but general quality assurance and the product development is carried out currently, there is no probing use or safety argumentation for rhinance at least in the automotive world therefore, the system requires the safety monitor at the outside of the rhinance to accomplish AGL qualification the safety monitor is based on the AGL-qualified RTOS running in the functional safety context and will check that the rhinance result are correct or consistent finally, in case the safety monitor identifies improper behavior safety monitor or safety side software will take over and continue rendering or it will bring the system into a safe state now, I'd like to look back on the interruption once we talked about how IVI and other in vehicle systems are currently being treated to be perfect as described here as mentioned before, perfection means that nothing happened to any issue if this can be realized, a safety monitor is not required but there are other uses for the safety monitor our learning activities as preparation for the next generation product include the following things as per our assumption and as per our ARGT quality level in case that the rhinance implementation works correctly safety monitor will never be triggered for a long renderer image this information needs to be captured and processed as a learning information information on when the safety monitor has been triggered or how long it has not been triggered can be collected by OEMs and suppliers via the cloud it can indicate or demonstrate how stable the Linux system is this is a learning that can be applied to the next product development and that this is a seed for the improvement the concept is very simple but unfortunately the real world is much more complex so the following should be considered in case that the safety monitor detect failure or abnormal maybe Rhinoxide cannot be credible therefore, RTOS site could store error logs in non-polar type memory in RTOS site after a system moved to safe state RTOS leads logs and send it to Rhinoxide sometimes Rhinoxide was restarted in order to move safe state at that time Rhinoxide can credible because of safe state then Rhinoxide can store rows from RTOS site and send to cloud but there are some problems, risks or questions first point is about how do we send the data from RTOS to Linux while keeping RTOS is safe depending on the mechanism we may not be able to keep the safety to increase the robustness of RTOS site it is a communication better in one direction this means that RTOS to Linux only but in this case it may not be possible to receive rows correctly it depends on the state of the Linux finally, I will explain the summary key messages and takeaways from this session are shown this slide at first, cards are becoming connected it's not just for the end user and customer feature but also for issue analysis and new market opportunities by analyzing preferences and making them more safer, more higher quality and more secure use validated learning to avoid surprises from the field automotive industry learns from larger industries such as web services and mobile phones apply the practices even in non-standard areas it may even enter functional safety use cases this is the last message from our end what will be the next learning you want to plan up front if you have any ideas could you please write it down into chat that's all for our presentation thank you very much


Welcome back everybody. It's the fourth Thursday of the month. I'm Jason Laduke taking over from Michelle Davis on the Geeks are sexy show Where we talk about business we talk about success in Las Vegas, but today we're going to be talking with a nonprofit And I love bringing nonprofits on the show because you guys have All the challenges of running a business without making that sweet sweet cash, right? So so our guest is going to be Lee Jackson the executive director of rethink world wide But I am going to take a second to mention our sponsor 5amglobal who you're familiar with So and 5amglobal at their core. They're a public relations firm But they go beyond just doing those press releases and doing that normal press distribution and placement They're going to go out there to find out what's the right media for you to be honest They're going to help you build that relationship with the media They even do this thing where they will go out and look for awards that you fit in the category for and they'll get you Submitted for those awards. So 5amglobal they do the basic public relations stuff But they go so much further with you to help you with your public relations So if you're looking for help with that contact Sean Willis and our team at 5amglobal Lee welcome to the show Thank you for being here. Hello Yeah, so we're going to talk about rethink world wide. You're the executive director there You've been involved in all aspects of business marketing event planning. You're an entrepreneur We started an energy drink a few years ago, which is going to be a whole different show We have you back for it But now you're taking the lead as the executive director of rethink world wide and what rethink world wide Does is they're helping to end single-use plastic? Educate individuals on how to live sustainably you just talked about sustainable businesses in our latin our couple segments ago with Ari But and how to live how to live sustainably and how to provide solutions to conserve the environment So thank you for being here. So tell us about rethink world wide. What is it and how did you get involved? so rethink world wide is a nonprofit organization and our mission is to end single-use plastic to educate individuals on how to live sustainably and to provide solutions to serve the environment So what is single-use plastic because I thought I had an idea and then when you and I sat down I was shocked by how many things that aren't real that aren't really single-use or single-use plastic So what are some of the things that are single-use plastic? That's okay I get asked that a lot because I've had to learn myself too, right? So it's everything that you can use one time and throw away, okay? So the number one thing is plastic water bottles, you know people are always drinking out of that and then they toss it But they forget to recycle them The second thing is plastic forks and spoons Containers that you would buy from Chinese restaurant, you know things like that.  So Plastic straws or the lid the coffee lids, right? Yeah So it's all these little things that we may not think about we may think about the cup being able to be recycled But the lid isn't or the straw isn't so that that actually is a big deal the straws Yeah, I'm glad you you mentioned that because that is the number one thing that is you know killing our precious turtles Well, and that's what that's why we brought you on here So we want to talk about this yeah because I don't think people really understand the scope of this problem and David If you can bring up that map 80% of water bottles aren't recycled never mind the straws like 0% of straws are recycled, right? So 80% of water bottles aren't recycled. We got all these straws What does that really mean and what are these sea gyres that we're looking at the screen now? We can see them there are five of these gyres out in the oceans. Tell us about those well You know what happens to all these plastic that's not being recycled They end up somehow or another in DC gyres in the ocean also in landfills Mm-hmm, and as you can see from the map there's about there's five of them They're most of them are the size of Texas. Yeah, and that's astounding. So you see you see this on the map They've got these little circles here on the map. That's about to scale. That's not an exaggeration That's how much trash is floating around in these spots in the ocean Yeah, and all these plastic end up from the whirlpool of water that's trapping the huge collection of trash And so there the one that's actually the biggest one Is the one between hawaii and california and as you can see in the map I mean there's about an estimated of 3.2 million tons of plastic and trash that are in the water there Yeah, and that's what's happening when we don't recycle when we don't take the time to You know to learn about what we can recycle it ends up there And um, it takes about 700 to a thousand years for this plastic to biodegrade right and um, it's releasing these awful toxins into the water and so tell us what that does to the turtles so As far as the toxins or as far as the plastic. Yeah, let's get it all We got 10 minutes.  So all of this is in our seawater right now And it's all interconnected and related. Yes. We have these big five gyres about the size of texas So a we've got all this trash in the ocean That's pretty gross by itself Then it's all leaching stuff into the water that's getting into our food chain So that's pretty gross. David, can you bring up one of the pictures of the beach? And the reason I want to bring this picture up is The gyres are very far away from most people especially in america, right? We it's not something we see every day And I think that if you Can't see a problem in your daily life It's really hard for it to hit home. But why it's a problem. Why should stop using plastic straws? Why, you know, my kids want plastic straws in the in the car when they drink their drink, right? Why should I stop doing that? But this is one picture of and Is this huntington island? Henderson Henderson island. Where is this? Uh, it's uh somewhere in the pacific It's actually um an island that is there's no living. There's no human beings in it There were studies that were done Where I think it's about 3500 pieces of trash That are washed up to the shore on a daily basis on a daily basis That's why I want to show this because this is without human intervention This is without somebody who's kind of a good person picking stuff up as they go or Or you know, someone whose job it is to come clean the trash off the beach and David I think we've got another picture that's even that's got even more trash on it, right? So this is what happens when yeah that one Um, yeah, so this is what happens when when we just like let things go without thinking about where they go And I know we don't see a lot of this here in the states, but this is what happens when you do this So I hope somebody will see these pictures and go I would never want that to happen here Maybe we can do something to keep that from happening where it's happening now And what can people do? What are some of the replacements they can use? Instead of single use plastic So you could use bags that are reusable again You don't don't use the plastic Grocery bags. You could use water bottles. Don't use the plastic water bottles Bring your own Water bottles, you know a lot of companies actually use those and you can get them at any trade show They're giving those out all the time. They are literally I mean they're just handing them out on street corners So and there are reusable straws metal straws There are metal straws that are really really good now You can get those at any of the large box stores, you know and just get that Instead of using plastic straws I found that there's a couple of restaurants that that's actually using bamboo straws Which is actually really cool. I like them better than the water than the paper straws Yeah, the paper straws get a little soggy if you don't drink your drink quick enough But I'm gonna have to look for those bamboo. Yeah, the bamboo straws are nice So all right. Well, in addition to your nonprofit and actually there's a whole story Yeah, about how your husband got involved with this other company and that's where the nonprofit came from So tell us about rethink fabrics Which is the shirt you're wearing today what I'm wearing right here And so you've got another one there that I can hold up. So I want you to but while I'm holding this shirt up Why don't you tell us about rethink fabrics and what's that? That's all about Yeah, rethink fabrics is a company that my husband and his partner acquired two years ago from seattle And they moved it here to vegas. They print here and The fulfillment and everything it comes out of las vegas and every shirt is actually made out of About 15 recycled plastic water bottles. Yeah, I'm a I'm a little larger So this one this one might be 17 or 18, but a little larger than I want to be right now But this is a this is great and what's great about this is it feels really soft This doesn't this doesn't like I would think something made out of reusable plastic bottles would feel a little a little waxy or a little rigid or that kind of stuff It feels really soft and nice. So yeah, I'm actually wearing it You know the whole process the reason why it's like that there's been 11 years worth of research that's put into this company You are you have to actually clean the plastic bottle smash melted reuse Turns into like little beads and then you turn it into the fabric and we turn it into the shirt So you can get these shirts at rethink fabrics. They're like 10 bucks.  They're inexpensive shirts and they feel really nice. Yes So Last thing you have a big event coming up this summer. Tell us about your event Well, you know part of the thing is is part of our initiative is to clean beaches And those pictures that you showed um is is one of our key initiatives. July. We're heading into Santa Monica Then it's a weekend july 20th and the 21st We're going to go there. It's going to be about 12 of us. So anyone that are still interested. It's about $500 per person to do that And for a weekend, we're going to be cleaning the beaches and and that's going to also kick off Our our october event where we're going to be talking about uh rethink earth week 2020. Okay, great So yeah, you've got this big event coming up in Santa Monica one of the top 10 dirtiest beaches in america So take that los angeles um I love picking on la. I don't know why We don't have a beach in vegas. So we got to help our neighbor. We got to do some but we are we are going to go help So, um, so great. So how can Viewers connect with you?  So yes, it's an easy two-minute questionnaire that will actually Um rate you on how you rate on how you compare to your peers on how sustainable you are So go take the quiz. Yeah buy a shirt buy a shirt Um and get signed up to go with lee and her team Down to santa monica to help clean up this summer. So stay right there We're gonna be right back with the the other two guests with our panel discussions I'm jason laduke from evil genius leadership consultants. This is geeks are sexy. Stay right here


Good morning. Hope everyone is in the right presentation. I found it slightly confusing here with zero E1 and zero E2. Anyway, this is the open source on ramp. The idea was for me to present a little bit about where we stand with open source now in the current age and how we got there and what we can learn from it. I mean, we all know the saying that if we don't learn from the past we're bound to repeat it. There's a lot of things that worked out in the past were forgotten or didn't work out at all and were tried again. Let me start with a quick introduction of myself. All the dates listed there are when I started actively developing software. So yes, 93 when it was still called free software. I used it earlier. I guess that makes me kind of an old timer. Anyone here working on free software longer than I do? Okay, I figured that much. Oh, close. Okay, fair enough. Did a couple of bits pieces here and there and then did some work on the Linux kernel actually, but very minor pieces. Became a Debian developer and then a Postgres developer in 98, both of which I still do. That's my professional history, not really important here. Although you might notice some of my first contacts with free software were at the university, which was pretty common back then and maybe still is. The first couple of years in business were like much less free software because free software wasn't that much of a thing back then, but I'm going to talk about that a little bit more in detail. So let's start with the early years of free software. Again, it was called free software back then with a couple, well, there's a reason it's called free software, but there's also a lot of confusion in the term free software and we know this is the open source summit. The new term that was coined in the 90s has a replacement for free software. Well, it's slightly different, but that doesn't matter. The thing is people thought about free software as in free beer again and again and again. Even back into the 2000s, I still remember somebody calling the office telling me some IT manager in the municipality telling me we have a Linux print server and it did stop working. Okay, what do you want me to do? I have to send somebody over immediately. We need to get back to printing. We need to print our documents. Okay, fair enough. It's like an hour right away. How do you want to proceed? Do you want to send me a written order? Should I give you the rates on the phone? Do you want me to fax something? And he was like flabbergasted. How do you mean rates? Literally, I thought it was free software so everything should be free. No, sending a consultant to your office, fixing your problems and going back is not free. And that probably problem was there for each and everyone back in the day. People didn't understand it. I think nowadays we could use free software again because most people do understand. Not all the nuances, but the general concept. It started mostly in academia. Again, I pointed to my own time at university. This is by the way is a path that the software or a route that the software calculated from Berkeley to somewhere in the Silicon Valley. Coming from the idea of creating that slide or that graphic came from the idea of showing how Postgres made it from the halls of Berkeley to the data centers. But that's exactly the point. Postgres was a university, a scientific project. Then the University of California said, okay, we're done with it. It was still free and a group of people came by, took the software, started fixing bugs, using it, improving it and so on. And it became the open source database. I mean, there's nothing comparable to it in terms of features and quality. Also, I mean, this is like, again, the old guy talking. This was before we had web servers and before all the worldwide web was in existence. So we did all this work through email and Usenet. Not sure if anyone still knows Usenet or uses, or I don't, I don't use it anymore. At least we know it. And most of the coders were literal volunteers and hobbyists. There was no real business behind it. Then the businesses started coming up. Mostly starting with Linux discos. But also with some pieces of software that were just needed on the new and developing thing called internet, like email servers. For the vast majority of email servers, as MTP servers on the internet, have always been Linux systems or Linux open source software, let's say. Originally back in the day, it was sent mail. I don't think anyone still uses sent mail. But still, there are a lot of different tools and it has always been that. And then other software came up. As I said, the worldwide web was just getting into existence. So Apache was built, the web server, which was always a major player. I don't think we ever had, except for maybe the first one or two years, we ever had a situation where less than 50% of the worldwide web servers weren't open source. Do you know how many, what percentage Apache itself has? Phil, I'm looking at you. Okay, anyway, I could have looked it up. Nowadays, we have different servers that you might use. But by and large, if somebody's running a website, a lot of it is run in open source software. And also functionality, I put it here, it's functionality to access and build the internet. In the mid 90s, there was a big, big business of building firewalls with Linux, with built-in filter software. I'm not sure what it was called back then, net filter, I don't know, I forgot the naming. I still see people running booth at trade shows selling those firewalls where they literally just configure the Linux kernel accordingly for six digit figures. For a short while, it was a real big business. Again, for a short while, until people understood what they were doing. But at the same time, most of the market didn't understand open source and didn't believe in it. Starting with free software, then we put it into open source. But again, the issue was not just the term, but also the way it works. I haven't been at meeting lots of people in the room. And one of the, it was about replacing the Informix database by Postgres. And one of the guys said, I don't believe in this open source stuff. I said, why don't you believe in it? Yeah, well, once people start developing a social life, they are out of the project and you lose your best coders. But wait, I'm married, I have three children. Don't you consider that a social life? And he's like, yeah, maybe, but I still don't believe it. Turns out he was the external consultant, paid big bucks for working on Informix and he didn't have any idea about Postgres. But at the end of the day, that argument won. So they put a lot of money into new additional licenses because it was a very easy argument. But again, I'm jumping ahead in my slide deck. The community-wise, we had loose communities. There wasn't this big group of people working on it. And most people came into it just by working for what they needed themselves. And then they pulled together for the greater good. Was every software and a version control system back then? Nope, not at all. And the packaging was an issue. That's why the Linux distribution came up, actually. But anyway, we got those figured out and started with the .com years, where open source, at least in some areas, became a real alternative. Back then, a lot of features that were developed in open source were simply re-implementations of what was done in proprietary software. You do your software, it doesn't matter what it is. You look at the proprietary alternative and see they have these neat features. Let's implement those two. But also at that time, we started seeing the first projects that got paid development. Where companies actually figured it makes sense to go into that area. We got software, I mean, Netscape Navigator is probably not the best known software anymore. StarOffice, or then OpenOffice, then LibreOffice now, is still a big, big thing in the open source world. And those companies just open sourced their software because it was the best move for them on the business side. In general, we had this .com market coming up with a lot of startups creating a lot of software. And a lot of those was done by using open source software or by even open sourcing the software. So the new development here is business started to rely on open source. People developed business models that used open source, that were built around open source. Some companies were out of their time though. There was this big, big consultancy firm where the strategy was, first place raised some capital, second higher, everyone you know that knows somebody about the topic of open source software. Third, find some work for these people. Obviously that is not a sustainable business model. They were betting on the market growing exponentially and it didn't, it actually faulted because the market collapsed. But anyway, it showed the word, it can be done. And the next generation actually survived, but not everyone, but most of them. Some of those open source parties were part of the bubble, sure. But some of those newcomers that were built around open source are now big, big, big companies. I mean, when did Google start? When did Facebook start? And also traditional companies started out with using open source, usually from the outside. I mean, this is a satellite picture, this is exactly those systems, not the satellite up there, but the satellite systems in an IT perspective, people started using open source for. Let's use open source for the smaller systems, the ones that are not so important and get some experience. And eventually open source moved into the inner core and replaced, for some companies at least, or for most companies, replaced the most important pieces of proprietary software they had. On the community side, we had to develop processes. The original word of, oh, I just sent an email and be done with it, wouldn't work anymore because more and more people loaded into the ecosystem. And I became a Debian developer, I send an email to the then project lead and said, hey, I would like to contribute, there's this piece of software that I use that is not part of Debian, I would like to package it. And the reply in clear text email is, well, here's your account on our master server, please change the password. That's it. And back then, connecting was something like town net, which means clear text of each and everywhere. Obviously, more people looking into it, more people trying to find vulnerabilities misusing the software, means you cannot stick with that plan. And also more people coming into it means more people with no idea what they're doing. They like to learn, which is fine. But while you're learning, you shouldn't be packaging or creating mission critical software for other people. That's just too big a risk. So open source community had to start with real processes where you prove your expertise, where the identity is checked. So you can trust the software you download from the internet. Again, speaking of my major projects with Debian, because it's such a distributed group of people, it's tricky, but we still do ID checks for new developers. And ideally by somebody meeting with them in person, checking the idea and checking the GPG key and cross-signing and so on. With Postgres it's different because we have that group of committers who are allowed write access to the source code and everyone else has to gain trust by sending patches and fixing bugs and so on. But they cannot write into the source code themselves directly. Also we found that different licenses created different needs and processes. It's fairly easy to say, okay, this is GPL, GPL gives you already a certain set of guidelines, what you can do and what you cannot do. Once you get into permissive licenses, it's more difficult because you're literally allowed to do everything with the software. But you don't want to exploit the community or don't want everyone to exploit you. It's not really nice when you talk to a software vendor that uses your software and they tell you, oh, I don't know what these community jerks want. We take everything they give us to get to market quicker, but we certainly don't give back because that's our advantage.  Could you at least Google me before you tell me that crap? So it's always a difficult situation for some software, for some business needs, permissive licenses, make a lot of sense. For others, they don't. And I know the Linux Foundation by and large promotes permissive licenses. I still believe that the Linux kernel has been that successful because it is GPL, because all the major vendors work together, there is no advantage for any one of them to fork, to take something away because they have to publish anyway, so they can collaborate. Also, in that timeframe, security became a topic. The hackers in the bad sense looked into Linux system, looked into open source systems as alternatives. Mostly not to steal data. Back then, there wasn't much data to be had, but to use the system as a stepping stone, as a jump host to attack somebody else. It's really great when you talk to IT people and they tell you, we have those Linux servers. This is great, we have a firewall, they have a firewall built in, did you know? Oh, yeah, I do. So we don't have to worry about it that much. Okay, can I have a look? Sure, yeah. Okay, it's nice that they have a firewall software integrated, but it should be activated. Wait, it's not? No, it's not. Okay, can we have a check? Sure, so we checked the system and found out it was used as a jump host to attack whomever. We never figured that out. At the end of the day, nothing bad happened for that system, but this is the special case. It was a hospital. Just assumed they had used the server to get medical data from their patient. They could have closed the doors, I mean, that could have been catastrophe. So it became a topic and people started worrying about it, which makes an awful lot of sense. It also resulted in open source software that became more and more competitive to proprietary software. Companies had to decide whether they wanted open source route or the proprietary route. A lot of companies did both to some extent, which makes sense, but also gave back changes they did to the open source software. So people started to play by the rules, started to become part of the ecosystem. There was a competition between open source software and proprietary software, but the difference to the earlier years, it was a two-way street. It wasn't the open source software copying features or feature ideas from the proprietary route. It was also proprietary route copying features from the open source software. Just as an example, there is a patent owned by Microsoft, something about aggregating button or aggregating, when you have certain amount of open windows, they go into one in the same button in the task manager, something like that. But the patent description says the first time the idea came up was on the KDE mailing list. So some guy from the KDE project came up with the idea and Microsoft said, that's a great idea, let's use it. Now we can discuss whether it was a good idea to get a patent for that, but a different story. The thing is, the open source word started developing their own ideas and ideas that were so good that the proprietary route wanted those two. The system became more and more complex. The awareness in user cases was much bigger. As for complex, there's a schema here of a, I'll call it a mail cluster. We did in 2003. That's the first scheme, schema. The idea was to filter all emails going in and going out for spam and viruses. And given that this was the German meteorological service, they need, and they send out their storm warnings through email, they needed to make sure everything's clean and they don't send viruses. The system has been upgraded, obviously. New hardware, new software versions enlarged, and whatever you do in those 20 plus years. But the condition back then, when we won the tender, it was our version of our solution and open source versus some proprietary software. So they went with us with the open source version because of availability that we promised.  It has never failed. Try doing that with some software where you cannot go into those bits and pieces and details to figure out what's going on. Really, really difficult. Also, companies started doing total cost of ownership calculations. Interesting enough, most of those showed easy wins for open source software. Despite that, a lot of decisions went to proprietary software anyway. What happened here is, back then, the proprietary world figured the only way to fight this open source movement that takes away our revenue and margins, is to spread fear and uncertainty and doubt. Up to the point where they put incompatibilities into their software and blame it on the other side. Or where they said, yeah, the office developers are just too not good enough because our office software has XML now, so everything is there. Yes, right, but if you use a binary blob and don't tell anyone what's in the blob, it's reverse engineering and you cannot be 100% perfect. Once you answer that, people left. So that was the literal sales argument by some people trying to sell Microsoft Office back then. A lot has changed, don't get me wrong. But back then, that was the tactics they used. Because even back then, the companies saw open source as a threat to their business. On the community side, we as a community, or a lot of communities, had to understand business requirements. We had to learn to speak business language as well. Originally, it was easy, like I need this feature, I want this feature, I'm going to implement it. But now it's like people saying, we need this feature, would you like to implement it for us? And you have to understand it because that feature is only needed if you run like 100 systems at the same time instead of one, and who has 100 systems at home. So we had to learn to speak business language, but we also had to learn to speak to each other. Yes, there were a couple of conferences and things before where people were able to talk to each other, but developer conferences, and conferences like this, were coming up in that timeframe. This is, by the way, the picture is taking from the 2006, I think, Devin Developer Conference. The original ones, the ones before had a very small group of people, but starting in that timeframe, more and more people were willing to travel to get to those conferences, and talk to each other, plan, work, and stuff like that. And then, let's say, in the last decade, open source has become a commodity. There's literally no data center in the world where you don't find open source software. There's probably no room in the world where people don't use half open source software. Just looking at your, you all have a cell phone in your pocket somewhere, and I assume some of you have an Android phone, so even have a Linux kernel, right? By the way, a very small piece on that soft phone was written by me. Anyway, it doesn't matter where we go.  You always find open source software somewhere, your car, everywhere. Now, what we also see is a lot of those traditional monolithic systems. Difficult to replace and not exactly up to date anymore. We had to learn how to do a distributed development, how to do distributed development on a large scale. Which open source communities really were good about. That resulted in a lot of companies figuring out, wait, we can use that for our internal development. So the term inner sourcing or inner source was developed using open source methodology for your internal own development. And we built more and more foundations around the open source software because for a change, we needed some organization around it as a community, but we also needed legal representation. It's not just the simple situation, everything is easy and just do it, stuff just happens. There are court cases out there with trademark violations and license violations and so on. And for a while it was even, or actually still is a risk for open source as well. So back to the data center thing as I just said, we are an every data center. The startups that survive the dot-com bubble are enterprises now, well, most of them. Some might have stayed small, but by and large, they are big now. But also traditional companies are using and installing and offering open source. But in that time, I've even got into regulated industries. So we see insurance companies, banks, other financial institutes use open source now. Well, maybe to a certain extent, maybe there is some special software that cannot do it with it. I don't think there's any open source software that can help you do your text work. And I can understand why nobody wants to take the risk to develop that software or follow up on all the changes the government comes up with to create more text revenue. So yes, I get that. But in a lot of areas, open source gives you the alternative, no big issue. Given that this here is the on-ramp track, I'd like to put a couple of words in about how do you build the skills to work in the industry to be part of the open source world and also the open source business world? Training was there for a long time, but it only became abundant during, I don't know, last 15 years. Not every company out there needs committers and developers. Actually, it's quite the opposite. Most companies out there need people who can administrate servers, who can keep systems running, who can set up new systems, who can configure systems, and so on. So there are a lot of skills that the market is desperately looking for that doesn't mean you have to be a coder and nothing but. It's still an argument that some companies use, oh, we are a much better company. You should work with us because we have those developers. Yeah, do you need a developer? No. Do you have people who can, well, take care of our database? Well, yeah, but we have to develop us. Oh, great idea. Anyway, when you look for a job, you will always run into those issues. And since you're being here, I assume you already have some experience with open source. And it's perfectly fine to start developing that skill set at home or during uni or on the side in a job that does something else. We all did that. And it's much easier to do with open source than with biotech software. But there's also the way to go around and get some trainings, get some certifications. I think it's really, really important for us as a community, as an ecosystem, to get more people into the market, to get more people develop the skills needed with and for open source. That training is probably the best way to fill the needs we have. However, training and certifications are a tricky thing. Please, if you go for training with some of the software or even a certificate or both, make sure you really get what you need and not something that just looks nice. It doesn't mean that such a training, such a certification doesn't mean you're on par with some year-long open source experts. Obviously not, but it's a stepping stone, but only if it gives you what you really need. And the example I always use is, I personally have a business history in quality assurance in IT, brief one, but still. And the certification that was really important back then was ISO 9001, which is about the quality of the processes and so on, but not about the quality of the product. So that's what these pictures come from. You can build a life vest out of concrete. Anyone here would like to have a concrete life vest in case the ship goes under? Well, I kind of figure that. But for your ISO certification, the concrete one is easier to get certified because you don't need a return process. Once it's used, it's gone. Nobody is coming back with it and saying, I want to return it because it doesn't work, because it's somewhere down there. So at the end of the day, the certification has to work with what you want to accomplish. And also if you try to build, well, build up your team, if you're responsible for a team, make sure you test people if they really know what they're talking about, and not just get something for clicking a couple multiple choice questions. Like the guy who wanted to have a database admin job and after two questions, but obviously he never did that kind of work. And I literally told him, let's be honest, you never touch a productive database system. And he was like, what do we mean? Sure, I got the Oracle test server running at home. That I would call production. No, it's not. And unfortunately, there are certifications out there. Still are, that bring you into the same situation. So now, modern word. Everyone is moving to microservices or not, or moving back from microservices. Not sure where you guys stand there. The worst thing, if you ask me, is those companies using, still having those big monolithic applications and trying to attach something to it to make it look like a microservice application. I flew in yesterday and every time I'm at the airport and see those big ASCII screens they use there for rental cars at the gate, it's like, okay, so I don't care what the system behind that is. This doesn't look like a modern design. And it actually happened to me that I was standing at the gate, no plane there and asked them about the delay because I got a layover, a short connection. And she's like, yeah, yeah, no worries. It's currently landing. Okay, 15 minutes later, we start boarding. There's still no plane. Oh yeah, it's not here, it's over there. But when I asked her the first time, she didn't even know because the system didn't offer that information. The problem is you have that big monolithic application that does exactly what somebody expected it to do or wanted it to do way back when. And adding stuff is really tricky. Changing this, I was on the round table last week and talked to, interesting enough, somebody who used to work for a company that does software for airlines. And he said, yeah, they all have the same issue. We don't have the people around anymore who know the inner details of that software. So, refactoring the software is almost impossible. And starting from scratch takes, I see you're not in there, you have the same experience. It's an issue, it's a real issue. So, a lot of things happen by just new developments. But honestly, most of the microservice things we see nowadays are open source. All cloud providers use open source. Everything that's, well, Kubernetes-based, everything that's cloud native. I mean, the whole infrastructure below it is open source. There is no proprietary alternative. So in a word, we could say open source rules the world now. Already talked about the phones, same thing. Just that people most of the time don't know. You don't know what your vendor is using in the cloud when you use a software as a service. The open source projects have changed because we get more complexity into it. We get more advanced project structures. So that also means for you and for everyone, we have to learn more about the project before we can actually contribute. And that's where the foundations become more important again. But we also, and that's a very positive thing, you also have a community of companies now. It's not companies versus open source. It's most, for most of the companies, we want to be part of open source. Maybe we don't know how. Maybe there is some explanation, some training to be done for those companies. But a lot of them want to be part of it. Although obviously very important hobbyist projects still exist, somebody run into the Lock4J issue. I guess everyone did. And it's good, I mean, not that we had the issue, but it's good that we still have those small projects that run maybe by one person. We just have to identify those and help them with what might be needed in terms of security testing. But if everything becomes a big project that's only run by companies, we're too far away from the grassroots movement that open source used to be. We need to keep our identity. Otherwise, I don't think we will have the same vibrant ecosystem we have now in, let's say, 10, 20 years. We have different business models in use. I'm not going to read them all. You probably know more than that. The new ground rule seems to be offer everything as a service. And it makes a lot of sense for a lot of people and a lot of companies. Why would you set up your own database if you only want to store a bit of data? Or why would you set up your own system that scales up and down like crazy and pay for hundreds and thousands of systems when you only need the scaling up like once in a year, like Black Friday or whatever? The managed service provider is, again, it's not the rule. For everything you want to do, you have somebody who offers this as a managed service. Some of the other models might not easily survive. I'm personally, I'm not a fan of the open core model because either the core is not enough to give you real functionality, then it's not worth looking into, and then it's just not really open source. Or it gives you enough, then why should you, why shouldn't you go full open source instead of open core that doesn't really hit home with me? Obviously, some business model better adjust to the new world than others. I remember somebody, a product manager from Microsoft before Azure was public, we sat together and he explained the concept Microsoft was going to have with the, and back then 2012, 11, I don't remember when, back then he said, we are already absolutely aware that the most open cloud wins. That's why we want Azure to be as open as possible. And obviously I was running a service company then and somebody else at the table said, oh, sorry for your body because your business is going to go away. Why? Yeah, because Microsoft and the like are going to take over. No, they never did because they give you the infrastructure. They don't help you run the software. None of those service providers, well, none of the big three at least, will go into your database if you have issues with your data. They will make sure that your database is up and running. That's it, that's where they cut the line. And that's where other companies come in who give you the services, but also maybe their own solution where their services included. The success that was obviously around the globe from a country where cloud is seen different than in some other countries. The standard approach in Germany is more my data, my data center. I'm not going to put it onto somebody else's host. Doesn't matter who made up which one owns the host. But there are use cases where it really makes an awful lot of sense. The other thing we get now is there's container based setup, obviously with microservices. By the way, all those containers usually have a build on top of some Linux distro. And most of the ones I know run on top of Debian. So it doesn't matter what your software is you have in your container. It's all run on open source. The requirements have changed, yes. So for the Linux distro or general open source communities, it changed, we don't have to worry about the full server anymore, at least not totally. We can also have to worry about those minimal systems in the container. Other things we have to worry about too. I mean, like security issues coming from rendering. I personally think, well, we invented shut libraries for a reason and then we went to a rendering approach and do exactly the opposite again. Why? You go to systems and scan them and then you figure out they have 347 open CVEs and the only thing you need to do is rebuild the software with the latest version of whatever JavaScript or Node.js library they're using and they're all gone. And actually 347 is gross under estimation. It's probably factor 10. So what are we looking for when we go for software vendors nowadays? Exclusively open source, well, it shouldn't be open core as I just said. If they want you to pay for it and then open source is eventually, for example, it's just another version of vendor control, vendor login. You wanna see people who really know what they're doing. You wanna see experts. It doesn't mean they have to be committers, but you want them to know what they're doing and not just, oh yeah, I know how to install a Linux server. The operations have to run at scale, reliably, securely and performantly. It should be in the cloud and on-prem, depending on what you do when you look at the software as a service solution. And the most important piece for me is there should be community engagement. I put it as influential on the slide. That doesn't mean they have to, well, decide where the project is going and how. But it doesn't mean they have to play a major role, a bigger role in the community, not just leaching the software, but also able and willing to fix bugs that you might encounter. It doesn't matter which software you use, they all have bugs. And if your software provider, your service provider, has those bugs and fixes those, it's exactly what you want and what you need. If they say there's nothing and just wait for the community to fix it, yeah, good luck with that. And that's it. And according to my timer here, I'm exactly on time. So any questions, any comments? Nothing? Thank you all.