wattersjames

I'm not an evangelist, but I am a member of the Cloud Foundry team, and responsible for partner development and ecosystem.

I think you are creating a straw man question as the overwhelming majority of partners have open sourced most/all of the applicable code. Take a look at http://www.ironfoundry.org for instance from Tier3 who has taken a very liberal approach to open source with their Cloud Foundry based service.

Appfog has also contributed back their code for PHP to Cloud Foundry. They are doing a very nice job of expanding the potential deployment targets as one of their competitive advantages (HP, Joyent, most EC2 regions).

Thus to answer your question I've seen robust contributions back with a very liberal amount of open source code, and a focus on value-add through service delivery options.

I'm curious about your view of the hybrid deployment model many of our users prefer with an on-prem instance that can be deployed to multiple service providers.

Solomon, wait, just 2 days ago you said CF was throw away code and not on your radar? Care to explain your pivot to 'intriguing'?

https://twitter.com/solomonstre/status/209895170194423808

Don't be so sure this started as a PR pitch...Cade has been covering Cloud Foundry and Appfog since they adopted Cloud Foundry, see all of his articles about it over at the Register, example: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/13/appfog_adds_ruby_and...

Yes it is, and we aren't going away any time soon. :) We'll more than be here in five years.

Congrats to Lucas on a bold move to shake up the PaaS start-up space.

If you are in the bay area on the 13th the Cloud Foundry team is hosting its first meetup. Come ask the tough questions to engineering:

http://www.meetup.com/cloudcomputing/events/17187485/

I think the point I'm really trying to make is that you can't just load a program into the cloud. The cloud is more like a software based mainframe if anything, but it requires a whole new set of architectures and a different way of thinking--and has radically different economic forces.

Its easier to trust someone with your data, if they have triple redundancy built into their architecture. S3 has that built in; a single MS SAN box does not. That's why its an important distinction.

You trust people with the right, next generation trust worthy architecture.

Cloud storage systems like S3 are often inferior in raw latency/response performance to a SAN which has VERY expensive adaptor silicon in it--but they are far superior on built in automatic, systematic, redundancy and global fail over and dispersal.

Its the Y combinator guys I was thinking of when I wrote this one. Sincerely curious for their thoughts.

With cloud computing rising to prominence as the underpinning of many modern web applications the amount of technology already 'assumed' in any new application design.

This trend seems to align with John's key point.

Great line to pull out, and most relevant to the Y crowd for sure. What's interesting is that all of that hacker success has really made enterprises take notice and they are trying to figure out the magic too. Problem is they aren't nearly as nimble at writing new apps for this paradigm.

Let's not confuse science and NASA too much in the discussion here I'd say. Flying the existing shuttle back and forth to space for 3 decades is as much dog and pony as it is science.

I'd like to agree with part of this article though. The science olympiad would have been a LOT more fun if the contest was to create the biggest explosion instead of the strongest toothpick bridge.

Godin wonder's why people pay for MBA's but he doesn't shrink from having his Stanford MBA on his resume. In a sea of ambition noise people use pedigree as a filter; perhaps having been chosen for this MBA alone will be the real resume and career boost.