Blog Archives

Canonical’s Office of The CDO: A 5 Year Journey in DevOps

I’m often asked what being the Vice President of Cloud Development and Operations means, when introduced for a talk or meeting, or when someone happens to run by my LinkedIn profile or business card.

The office of the CDO has been around in Canonical for so long, I forget that the approach we’ve taken to IT and development is either foreign or relatively new to a lot of IT organizations, especially in the commonly thought of “enterprise” space. I was reminded of this when I gave a presentation at an OpenStack Developer Summit entitled “OpenStack in Production: The Good, the Bad, & the Ugly”¬†a year ago in Portland, Oregon. Many in the audience were surprised by the fact that Canonical not only uses OpenStack in production, but uses our own tools, Juju and MAAS, created to manage these cloud deployments. Furthermore, some attendees were floored by how our IT and engineering teams actually worked well together to leverage these deployments in our production deployment of globally accessible and extensively used services.

Before going into what the CDO is today, I want to briefly cover how it came to be. The story of the CDO goes back to 2009, when our CEO, Jane Silber, and Founder, Mark Shuttleworth, were trying to figure out how our IT operations team and web services teams could work better…smarter together. At the same time our engineering teams had been experimenting with cloud technologies for about a year, going so far as to provide the ability to deploy a private cloud in our 9.04 release of Ubuntu Server.


It was clear to us then, that cloud computing would revolutionize the way in which IT departments and developers interact and deploy solutions, and if we were going to be serious players in this new ecosystem, we’d need to understand it at the core. The first step to streamlining our development and operations activities was to merge our IT team, who provided all global IT services to both Canonical and the Ubuntu community, with our Launchpad team, who developed, maintained, and serviced, the core infrastructure for hosting and building Ubuntu. We then added our Online Services team, who drove our Ubuntu One related services, and this new organization was called Core DevOps…thus the CDO was born.

Roughly soon after the formation of the CDO, I was transitioning between roles within Canonical, going from acting CTO to Release Manager (10.10 on 10.10.10..perfection! ūüôā ), then landing in as our new manager for the Ubuntu Server and Security teams. Our server engineering efforts continued to become more and more focused on cloud, and we had also began working on a small, yet potentially revolutionary, internal project called Ensemble, which was focused on solving the operational challenges system administrators, solution architects, and developers would face in the cloud, when one went from managing 100s of machines and associated services to 1000s.

All of this led to a pivotal engineering meeting in Cape Town, South Africa early 2011, where management and technical leaders representing all parts of the CDO and Ubuntu Server engineering met with Mark Shuttleworth, along with the small team working on Project Ensemble, to determine the direction Canonical would take with our server product.


Until this moment in time, while we had been dabbling in cloud computing technologies with projects like our own cloud-init¬†and the Amazon EC2 AMI Locator, Ubuntu Server was still playing second stage to Ubuntu for the desktop. While being derived from Debian¬†(the world’s most widely deployed and dependable Linux web hosting server OS), certainly gave us credibility as a server OS, the truth was that most people thought of desktops when you mentioned Ubuntu the OS. Canonical’s engineering investments were still primarily client focused, and Ubuntu Server was nothing much more than new Debian releases at a predictable cadence, with a bit of cloud technology thrown in to test the waters. But this weeklong engineering sprint was where it all changed. After hours and hours of technical debates, presentations, demonstrations, and meetings, there were two major decisions made that week that would catapult Canonical and Ubuntu Server to the forefront of cloud computing as an operating system.

The first decision made was OpenStack was the way forward. The project was still in its early days, but it had already peaked many of our engineers’ interest, not only because it was being led by friends of Ubuntu and former colleagues of Canonical, Rick Clark, Thierry Carrez, and Soren Hansen, but the development methods, project organization, and community were derived from Ubuntu, and thus it was something we knew had potential to grow and sustain itself as an opensource project. While we still had to do our due diligence on the code, and discuss the decision at UDS, it was clear to many then that we’d inevitably go that direction.

The second decision made was that Project Ensemble would be our main technical contribution to cloud computing, and more importantly, the key differentiator we needed to break through as the operating system for the cloud. While many in our industry were still focused on scale-up, legacy enterprise computing and the associated tools and technologies for things like configuration and virtual machine management, we knew orchestrating services and managing the cloud were the challenges cloud adopters would need help with going forward. Project Ensemble was going to be our answer.

Fast forward a year to early 2012. Project Ensemble had been publicly unveiled as, Juju, the Ubuntu Server team had fully adopted OpenStack and plans for the hugely popular Ubuntu Cloud Archive were in the works, and my role had expanded to Director of Ubuntu Server, covering the engineering activities of multiple teams working on Ubuntu Server, OpenStack, and Juju. The CDO was still covering IT operations, Launchpad, and Online Services, but now we had started discussing plans to transition our own internal IT infrastructure over to an internal cloud computing model, essentially using the very same technologies we expected our users, and Canonical customers, to depend on. ¬†As part of the conversation on deploying cloud internally, our Ubuntu Server engineering teams started looking at tools to adopt that would provide our internal IT teams and the wider Ubuntu community the ability to deploy and manage large numbers of machines installed with Ubuntu Server. Originally, we landed on creating a tool based on Fedora’s Cobbler project, combined with Puppet scripts, and called it Ubuntu Orchestra. It was perfect for doing large-scale, coordinated installations of the OS and software, such as OpenStack, however it quickly became clear that doing this install was just the beginning…and unfortunately, the easy part. ¬†Managing and scaling the deployment was the hard part. While we had called it Orchestra, it wasn’t able to orchestrate much beyond machine and application install. Intelligently and automatically controlling the interconnected services of OpenStack or Hadoop in a way that allowed for growth and adaptability was the challenge. ¬†Furthermore, the ways in which you had to describe the deployments were restricted to Puppet and it’s descriptive scripting language and approach to configuration management…what about users wanting Chef?…or CF Engine?…or the next foobar configuration management tool to come about? ¬†If we only had a tool for orchestrating services that ran on bare metal, we’d be golden….and thus Metal as a Service (MAAS) was born.

MAAS was created for the sole purpose of providing Juju a way to orchestrate physical machines the same way Juju managed instances in the cloud. ¬†The easiest way to do this, was to create something that gave cloud deployment architects the tools needed to manage pools of servers like the cloud. ¬†Once we began this project, we quickly realized that it was good enough to even stand on its own, i.e. as a management tool for hardware, and so we expanded it to a full fledged project. ¬†MAAS expanded to having a verbose API and user-tested GUI, thereby making Juju, Ubuntu Server deployment, and Canonical’s Landscape product leverage the same tool for managing hardware…allowing all three to benefit from the learnings and experiences of having a shared codebase.

The CDO Evolves

In the middle of 2012, the current VP of CDO decided to seek new opportunities elsewhere. ¬†Senior management took this opportunity to look at the current organizational structure of Core DevOps, and adjust/adapt according to both what we had learned over the past 3 1/2 years and where we saw the evolution of IT and the server/cloud development heading. ¬†The decision was made to focus the CDO more on cloud/scale-out server technologies and aspects, thus the Online Services team was moved over to a more client focused engineering unit. This left Launchpad and internal IT in the CDO, however the decision was also made to move all server and cloud related project engineering teams and activities into the organization. The reasoning was pretty straight-forward, put all of server¬†dev and ops into the same team to eliminate “us vs them” siloed conversations…streamline the feedback loop between engineering and internal users to accelerate both code quality and internal adoption. ¬†I took a career growth decision to apply for the chance to lead the CDO, and was fortunate enough to get it, and thus became the new Vice President of Core DevOps.

My first decision as new lead of the CDO was to change the name. ¬†It might seem trivial, but while I felt it was key to keep to our roots in DevOps, the name Core DevOps no longer applied to our organization because of the addition of so much more server and cloud/scale-out computing focused engineering. ¬†We had also decided to scale back internal feature development on Launchpad, focusing more on maintenance and reviewing/accepting outside contributions. ¬†Out of a pure desire to reduce the overhead that department name changes usually cause in a company, I decided to keep the acronym and go with Cloud and DevOps at first. However, then the name (and quite honestly the job title itself) seemed a little too vague…I mean what does VP of Cloud or VP of DevOps really mean? ¬†I felt like it would have been analogous to being the VP of Internet and Agile Development…heavy on buzzword and light on actual meaning. ¬†So I made a minor tweak to “Cloud Development and Operations“, and while arguably still abstract, it at least covered everything we did within the organization at high level.

At the end of 2012, we internally gathered representation of every team in the “new and improved” CDO for a week long strategy session on how we’d take advantage of the reorganization. We reviewed team layouts, workflows, interactions, tooling, processes, development models, and even which teams individuals were on. ¬†Our goal was to ensure we didn’t duplicate effort unnecessarily, share best practices, eliminate unnecessary processes, break down communication silos, and generally come together as one true team. The outcome resulted in some teams broken apart, some others newly formed, processes adapted, missions changed, and some people lost because they didn’t feel like they fit anymore.

Entering into 2013, the goal was to simply get work done:

  • Work to deploy, expand, and transition developers and production-level services to our internal OpenStack clouds: CanoniStack and ProdStack.
  • Work to make MAAS and Juju more functional, reliable, and scalable.
  • Work to make Ubuntu Server better suited for OpenStack, more easily consumable in the public cloud, and faster to bring up for use in all scale-out focused hardware deployments
  • Work to make Canonical’s Landscape product more relevant in the cloud space, while continuing to be true to its roots of server management.

All this work was in preparation for the 14.04 LTS release, i.e. the Trusty Tahr. Our feeling was (and still is) that this had to be the release when it all came together into a single integrated solution for use in *any* scale-out computing scenario…cloud…hyperscale…big data…high performance computing…etc. ¬†If a computing solution involved large numbers of computational machines (physical or virtual) and massively scalable workloads, we wanted Ubuntu Server to be the defacto OS of choice. ¬†By the end of last year, we had achieved a lot of the IT and engineering goals we set, and felt pretty good about ourselves. ¬†However, as a company we quickly discovered there was one thing we left out in our grand plan to better align and streamline our efforts around scale-out technologies….professional delivery and support of these technologies.

To be clear, Canonical had not forgotten about growing or developing our teams of engineers and architects responsible for delivering solutions and support to customers. We had just left them out of our “how can we do this better” thinking when aligning the CDO. We were initially focused on improving how we developed and deployed, and we were benefiting from the changes made. ¬†However, now as we began growing our scale-out computing customer base in hyperscale and cloud (both below and above), we began to see that same optimizations made between Dev and Ops, needed to be done with delivery. So in December of last year, we moved all hardware enablement and certification efforts for servers, along with technical support and cloud consultancy teams into the CDO. ¬†The goal was to strengthen the product feedback loop, remove more “us vs them” silos, and improve the response times to customer issues found in the field. ¬†We were basically becoming a¬†global team of scale-out technology superheroes.


It’s been only 3 months since our server and cloud enablement and delivery/support teams have joined the CDO, and there are already signs of improvement in responsiveness to support issues and collaboration on technical design. ¬†I won’t lie and say it’s all been butterflies and roses, nor will I say we’re done and running like a smooth, well-oiled machine because you simply can’t do that in 3 months, but I know we’ll get there with time and focus.

So there you have it.

The Cloud Development and Operations organization in Canonical is now 5 years strong. ¬†We¬†deliver global, 24×7 IT services to Canonical, our customers and Ubuntu community. ¬†We have engineering teams creating server, cloud, hyperscale, and scale-out software technologies and solutions to problems some have still yet to even consider. ¬†We deliver these technologies and provide customer support for Canonical across a wide range of products including Ubuntu Server and Cloud. ¬†This end-to-end integration of development, operations, and delivery is why Ubuntu Server 14.04 LTS, aka the Trusty Tahr, will be the most robust, technically innovative release of the Ubuntu for the server and cloud to date.

Screw the Ubuntu Edge…We’re Giving Away $30,000!!!


So I’m partially kidding…the Ubuntu Edge is quickly becoming a crowdfunding phenomena, and everyone should support it if they can. ¬†If we succeed, it will be a historic moment for Ubuntu, crowdfunding, and the global phone industry as well.¬†

But I Don’t Wanna Talk About That Right Now

While I’m definitely a fan of the phone stuff, I’m a cloud and server guy at heart and what’s gotten me really excited this past month have been two significant (and freaking awesome) announcements.

#1 The Juju Charm Championship


First off, if you still don’t know about Juju, it’s essentially our attempt at making¬†Cloud Computing for Human Beings. ¬†Juju allows you to deploy, connect, manage, and scale web services and applications quickly and easily…again…and again…AND AGAIN! ¬†These services are captured in what we call¬†charms, which contain the¬†knowledge of how to properly deploy, configure, connect, and scale the services and applications you will want to deploy in the cloud. ¬†We have¬†100’s of charms for every popular and well-known web service and application in use in the cloud today. ¬†They’ve been authored and maintained by the experts, so you don’t have to waste your time trying to become one. ¬†Just as Ubuntu depends on a community of packagers and developers, so does Juju. ¬†Juju goes only as far as our Charm Community will take us, and this is why the¬†Charm Championship is so important to us.

So….what is this Charm Championship all about? ¬†We took notice of the fantastic response to the Cloud-Prize contest ran by our good friends (and Ubuntu Server users) over at Netflix. ¬†So we thought we could do something similar to boost the number of full service solutions deployable by Juju, i.e. Charm Bundles. ¬†If charms are the APT packages of the cloud, bundles are effectively the package¬†seeds, thus allowing you to deploy groups of services, configured and interconnected all at once. ¬†We’ve chosen this approach to increase our bundle count because we know from our experience with Ubuntu, that the best approach for growth will be by harvesting and cultivating the expertise and experience of the experts regularly developing and deploying these solutions.¬† For example, we at Canonical maintain and regularly deploy an OpenStack¬†bundle¬†to allow us to quickly get our clouds up for both internal use and for our Ubuntu Advantage customers. ¬†We have master level expertise in OpenStack cloud deployments, and thus have codified this into our charms so that others are able to benefit. ¬†The Charm Championship is our attempt to replicate this sharing of similar master level expertise across more service/application bundles…..BY OFFERING $30,000 USD IN PRIZE MONEY!¬†Think of how many Ubuntu Edge phones that could buy you…well, unless you desperately need to have one of the first 50 :-).


Ironman JARVIS technologyFrom the very moment we began thinking about creating Juju years ago…we always envisioned eventually creating an interface that provides solution architects the ability to graphically create, deploy, and interact with services visually…replicating the whiteboard planning commonly employed in the planning phase of such solutions.

The new Juju GUI now integrated into is the realization of our vision, and I’m excited as hell at the possibilities opened and the technical roadblocks removed by the release of this tool. ¬†We’ve even charmed it, so you can ¬†‘juju deploy juju-gui’¬†into any supported cloud, bare metal (MAAS), or local workstation (via LXC) environment. ¬†Below is a video of deploying OpenStack via our new GUI, and a perfect example of the possibilities that are opened up now that we’ve released this innovative and f*cking awesome tool:

The best part here, is that you can play with the new GUI¬†RIGHT NOW¬†by selecting the “Build” option on¬†….so go ahead and give it a try!

Join the Championship…Play with the GUI…then Buy the Phone

Cause I will definitely admit…it’s a damn sexy piece of hardware. ūüėČ

Doing cloud since 2008

Doing cloud since 2008

Lock-In: Why Your OS Choice Matters in the Cloud

Public Cloud Lock-In

I ran across an article¬†last week about the fear of cloud lock-in being a “key concern of companies considering a cloud move“. ¬†The article was spot on in pointing out that¬†dependence upon some of the higher level public cloud service features hinders a user’s ability to migrate to another cloud. ¬†There is a real risk in being locked into a public cloud service, not only due to dependence on the vendor’s services, but also the complexity and costs of trying to move your data out. ¬†The article concludes by stating that there “aren‚Äôt easy answers to this problem“, which I think is true…but I also think by simply keeping two things in mind, a user can do a lot to mitigate the lock-in risk.

1. Choose an Independently Produced Operating System

Whatever solutions you decide to deploy, it’s absolutely critical¬†that you choose an operating system not produced by the public cloud provider. ¬†This recent fad of public cloud providers creating their own specific OS¬†is just history repeating itself, where HP-UX, IRIX, Solaris, and AIX are being replaced with the likes of GCEL and Amazon Linux. ¬†Sure, the latter are Linux-based, but just like the proprietary UNIX operating systems of the past, they are developed internally, only support the infrastructure they’re designed for, and are only serviceable by the company that produces them. ¬†Of course the attraction to using these operating systems is understandable, because the provider can offer them for “free” to users desiring a supported OS in the cloud. ¬†They can even price services lower to customers who use their OS as an incentive and “benefit”, with the claim it allows them to provide better and faster support. ¬† It’s a perfect solution….at first. ¬†However, once you’ve deployed your solution to a public cloud vendor-specific OS, you have made a huge first step towards lock-in. ¬†Sure, the provider can say their OS is based on an independently produce operating system, but that means nothing once the two have diverged due to security updates and fixes, not to mention release schedules and added features. ¬†There’s no way the public cloud vendor OS can keep up, and they really have no incentive to, because they’ve already got you….the longer you stay on their OS, the more you will depend on their application and library versions, thus the deeper you get. ¬†A year or two down the road, another public cloud provider pops up with better service and/or prices, but you can’t move without the risk of extended downtimes and/or loss of data, in addition to the costs of paying your IT team the overtime it will take to architect such a migration. ¬†We’ve all been here before with proprietary UNIX and luckily Linux arrived on the scene just in time to save us.

2. Choose an Operating System with Service Orchestration Support

Most of the lock-in features provided by public clouds are simply “Services as a Service”, be it a database service, ¬†big data/mapreduce service, or a development platform service like rails or node. ¬†All of these services are just applications easily deployed, scaled, and connectable to existing solutions. ¬†Of course it’s easy to understand the attraction to using these public cloud provider services, because it means no setup, no maintenance, and someone else to blame if s**t goes sideways with the given service. ¬†However, again by accepting these services, you are also accepting a level of lock in. ¬†By creating/adapting your solution(s) to use the load balancing, monitoring, and/or database service, you are making them less portable and thus harder/costlier for you to migrate. ¬†I can’t blame the providers for doing this, because it makes *perfect* sense from a business perspective:

I’m providing a service that is¬†commoditized…I can only play price wars for so long….so how can I keep my customers once that happens….services! ¬†And what’s more, I don’t want them to easily use another cloud, so I’ll make sure my services require you to utilize my API….possibly even provide a better experience on my own OS.

Now I’m not saying you shouldn’t use these services, but you should be careful of how much of them you consume and depend on. ¬†If you ever intend or need to migrate, you will want a solution that covers the scenario of the next cloud provider not having the same service…or the service priced at a higher rate than you can afford…or the service quality/performance not being as good. ¬†This is where having a good service orchestration solution becomes critical, and if you don’t want to believe me…just ask folks at IBM or OASIS. ¬†And for the record, service orchestration is not configuration management….and you can’t get their by placing a configuration management tool in the cloud. ¬†Trying to get configuration management tools to do service orchestration is like trying to teach a child to drive a car. ¬†Sure, it can be done pretty well in a controlled empty parking lot…on a clear day. ¬†However, once you add unpredictable weather, pedestrians, and traffic, it gets real bad, real quick. ¬†Why? ¬†Because just like your typical configuration management tool, a child lacks the intelligence to react and adapt to the changing conditions in the environment.

Choose Ubuntu Server

Obviously I’m going to encourage the use of Ubuntu Server, but not just because I work for Canonical or am an Ubuntu community member, but because I actually believe it’s currently the best option around. ¬†Canonical and Ubuntu Server community members have put countless hours and effort into ensuring Ubuntu Server runs well in the cloud, and Canonical is working extremely hard with public cloud providers to ensure our users can depend on our images and public cloud infrastructure to get the fastest, cheapest, and most efficient cloud experience possible. ¬† There’s much more to running well in the cloud than just putting up an image and saying “go!”. ¬† Just to name a few examples: there’s insuring all instance sizes are supported, adding in-cloud mirrors across regions and zones to ensure faster/cheaper updates, natively packaging API tools and hosting them in the archives, updating images with SRUs to avoid costly time spent updating at first boot, daily development images made available, and ensuring Juju works within the cloud to allow for service orchestration¬†and migration to other supported public clouds.

Speaking of Juju, we’ve also invested¬†years (not months….YEARS) into our service orchestration project,¬†and I can promise you that no one else, right now, has anything that can come close to what it can do. ¬†Sure, there are plenty of people talking about service orchestration…writing about service orchestration….and some might even have a prototype or beta of a service orchestration tool, but no one comes close to what we have in Juju…no one has the¬†community¬†engagement behind their toolset…that’s growing everyday. ¬†I’m not saying Juju is perfect by any means, but it’s the best you’re going to find if you are really serious about doing service orchestration in the cloud or even on the metal.

Over the next 12 months, you will see Ubuntu continue to push the limits of what users can expect from their operating system when it comes to scale-out computing. ¬†You have already seen what the power of the Ubuntu community can do with a phone and tablet….just watch what we do for the cloud.

Can Ubuntu Server Roll Too?

Wow…I just realized how long it’s been since I did a blog post, so apologies for that first off. ¬†FWIW, it’s not that I haven’t had any good things to say or write about, it’s just that I haven’t made¬†the time to sit down and type them out….I need a blog thought transfer device or something :-). ¬†Anyway, with all the talk about Ubuntu doing a rolling release, I’ve been thinking about how that would affect Ubuntu Server releases, and more importantly….could Ubuntu Server roll as well? ¬†In answering this question, I think it comes down to two main points of consideration (beyond what the client flavors would already have to consider).


How Would This Affect Ubuntu Server Users?

We have a lot of anecdotal data and some survey evidence that most Ubuntu Server users mainly deploy the LTS. ¬†I doubt this surprises people, given the support life for an LTS Ubuntu Server release is 5 years, versus only 18 months for a non-LTS Ubuntu Server release. ¬†Your average sysadmin is extremely risk adverse (for good reason), and thus wants to minimize any risk to unwanted change in his/her infrastructure. ¬†In fact, most production deployments also don’t even pull packages from the main archives, instead they mirror them internally to allow for control of exactly what and when updates and fixes roll out to internal client and/or server machines. ¬†Using a server operating system that requires you to upgrade every 18 months, to continue getting fixes and security updates, just doesn’t work in environments where the systems are expected to support 100s to 1000s of users for multiple years, often without significant downtime. With that said, I think there are valid uses of non-LTS releases of Ubuntu Server, with most falling into two main categories: Pre-Production Test/Dev or Start-Ups, with the reasons actually being the same. ¬†The non-LTS version is perfect for those looking to roll out products or solutions intended to be production ready in the future. ¬†These releases provide users a mechanism to continually test out what their product/solution will eventually look like in the LTS as the versions of the software they depend upon are updated along the way. ¬†That is, they’re not stuck having to develop against the old LTS and hope things don’t change too much in two years, or use some “feeder” OS, where there’s no guarantee the forked and backported enterprise version will behave the same or contain the same versions of the software they depend on. ¬†In both of these scenarios, the non-LTS is used because it’s fluid, and going to a rolling release only makes this easier…and a little better, I dare say. ¬†For one, if the release is rolling, there’s no huge release-to-release jump during your test/dev cycle, you just continue to accept updates when ready. ¬†In my opinion, this is actually easier in terms of rolling back as well, in that you have less parts moving all at once to roll back if needed. ¬†The second thing is that the process for getting a fix from upstream or a new feature is¬†much less involved because there’s no SRU patch backporting, just the new release with the new stuff. ¬†Now admittedly, this also means the possibility for new bugs and/or regressions, however given these versions (or ones built subsequently) are destined to be in the next LTS anyway, the faster the bugs are found out and sorted, the better for the user in the long term. ¬†If your solution can’t handle the churn, you either don’t upgrade and accept the security risk, or you smoke test your solution with the new package versions¬†in a duplicate environment. ¬†In either case, you’re not running in production, so in theory…a bug or regression shouldn’t be the end of the world. ¬†It’s also worth calling out that from a quality and¬†support perspective, a rolling Ubuntu Server means Ubuntu developers and Canonical engineering staff who normally spend a lot of time doing SRUs on non-LTS Ubuntu Server releases, can now focus efforts on the Ubuntu Server LTS release….where we have a majority of users and deployments.


How Would This Affect Juju Users?

In terms of Juju, a move to a rolling release tremendously simplifies some things and mildly complicates others. ¬†From the point of view of a charm author, this makes life¬†much easier. ¬†Instead of writing a charm to use a package in one release, then continuously duplicating and updating it to work with subsequent releases that have newer packages, you only maintain two charms…maximum of three if you want to include options for running code from upstream. ¬†The idea is that every charm in the collection would default to using packages from the latest Ubuntu Server LTS, with options to use the packages in the rolling release, and possibly an extra option to pull and deploy direct from upstream. ¬†We already do some of this now, but it varies from charm to charm…a rolling server policy would demand we make this mandatory for all accepted charms. ¬†The only place where the rules would be slighlty different, are in the Ubuntu Cloud Archives, where the packages don’t roll, instead new archive pockets are created for each OpenStack release. ¬†From a users perspective, a rolling release is good, yet is also complicated unless we help…and we will. ¬†In terms of the good, users will know every charmed service works and only have to decide between LTS and rolling as the deployment OS, where as now, they have to choose a release, then hope the charm has been updated to support that release. ¬†The reduction in charm-to-release complexity also allows us to do better testing of charms because we don’t have to test every charm against oneiric, precise, raring, “s”, etc, just precise and the rolling release….giving us more time to improve and deepen our test suites.

With all that said, a move to a rolling Ubuntu Server release for non-LTS also adds the danger of inconsistent package versions for a single service in a deployment. ¬†For example, you could deploy a solution with 5 instances of wordpress 3.5.1 running, we update the archive to wordpress 3.6, then you decide to add 3 more units, thus giving you a wordpress service of mixed versions….this is¬†bad. ¬†So how do we solve this? ¬†It’s actually not that hard. ¬†First, we would need to ensure that Juju never automatically adds units to an existing service if there’s a mismatch in the version of binaries between the currently deployed instances and the new ones about to be deployed. ¬†If Juju detected the binary inconsistency, it would need to return an error, optionally asking the user if he/she wanted it to upgrade the currently running instances to match the new binary versions. ¬†We could also add some sort of –I-know-what-I-am-doing option to give the freedom to those users who don’t care about having version mismatches. ¬†Secondly, we should ensure an existing deployment can always grow itself without requiring a service upgrade. ¬† My current thinking around this is that we’d create a package caching charm, that can be deployed against any existing Juju deployment. ¬†The idea is much like squid-deb-proxy (accept the cache never expires or renews), where the caching instance acts as the archive mirror for the other instances in the deployment, providing the same cached packages deployed in that given solution. ¬†The package cache should be ran in a separate instance with persistent storage, so that even if the service completely goes down, it can be restored with the same packages in the cache.


So…Can Ubuntu Server Roll?

Yes We Can!

I honestly think we can and should consider it, but I’d also like to hear the concerns of folks who think we shouldn’t.

OpenStack in Ubuntu Server 12.04 LTS

With the release of Ubuntu Server 12.04 LTS quickly approaching, the Ubuntu Server Team has been working extremely hard on ensuring OpenStack Essex will be of high quality and tightly integrated into Ubuntu Cloud. ¬†As with prior Long Term Support releases, Canonical commits to maintaining Ubuntu Server 12.04 LTS for five years, which means users receive five years of maintenance for the OpenStack Essex packages we provide in main. ¬†¬†With that said, we recognize that OpenStack is still a relatively young project moving at a tremendous rate of innovation right now, with features and fixes already planned for Folsom that some users require for their production deployment. ¬†In the past, these users would have to upgrade off the LTS, in order to get maintenance for the OpenStack release they need on Ubuntu Server… thus foregoing the five year maintenance they want and need for their production deployment. ¬†We wholeheartedly believe there are situations where moving to the next release of Ubuntu (12.10, 13.04, etc) for newer OpenStack releases works just fine, especially for test/dev deployments. ¬†However, we also know there will be many situations where users cannot afford the risk and/or the cost of upgrading their entire cloud infrastructure just to get the benefits of a newer OpenStack release, and we need to have a solution that fits their needs. After thinking about what users want and where most people expect OpenStack go in terms of continued innovation and stability, we have decided to provide Ubuntu users with two options for maintenance and support in the 12.04 LTS.

The first option is that users can stay with the shipped version of OpenStack (Essex) and remain with it for the full life of the LTS.  As per the Ubuntu LTS policy, we commit to maintaining and supporting the Essex release for 5 years.  The point releases will also ship the Essex version of OpenStack, along with any bug fixes or security updates made available since its release.

Introducing the Ubuntu Cloud Archive

The second option involves Canonical’s Ubuntu Cloud archive, which we are officially announcing today.  Users can elect to enable this archive, and install newer releases of OpenStack (and the dependencies) as they become available up through the next Ubuntu LTS release (presumably 14.04).  Bug processing and patch contributions will follow standard Ubuntu practice and policy where applicable.  Canonical commits to maintaining and supporting new OpenStack releases for Ubuntu Server 12.04 LTS in our Ubuntu Cloud archive for at least 18 months after they release.  Canonical will stop introducing new releases of OpenStack for Ubuntu Server 12.04 LTS into the Ubuntu Cloud archive with the version shipped in the next Ubuntu Server LTS release (presumably 14.04).  We will maintain and support this last updated release of OpenStack in the Ubuntu Cloud archive for 3 years, i.e. until the end of the Ubuntu 12.04 LTS lifecycle.
In order to allow for a relatively easy upgrades, and still adhere to Ubuntu processes and policy, we have elected to have be the home of the Ubuntu Cloud archive.  We will enable update paths for each OpenStack release.

  • e.g. Enabling ‚Äúprecise-folsom‚ÄĚ in the archive will provide access to all OpenStack Folsom packages built for Ubuntu Server 12.04 LTS (binary and source), any updated dependencies required, and bug/security fixes made after release.

As of now, we have no plans to build or host OpenStack packages for non-LTS releases of Ubuntu Server in the Ubuntu Cloud archive.  We have created the chart below to help better explain the options.


Why Not Use Stable Release Updates?

Ubuntu’s release policy states that once an Ubuntu release has been published, updates must follow a special procedure called a stable release update, or SRU, and are delivered via the -updates archive. ¬†These updates are restricted to a specific set of characteristics:

  • severe regression bugs
  • security vulnerabilities (via the -security archive)
  • bugs causing loss of user data
  • “safe” application layer bugs
  • hardware enablement
  • partner archive updates

Exceptions to the SRU policy are possible. However, for this to occur the Ubuntu Technical Board must approve the exception, which must meet their guidelines:

  1. Updates to new upstream versions of packages must be forced or substantially impelled by changes in the external environment, i.e. changes must be outside anything that could reasonably be encapsulated in a stable release of Ubuntu. Changes internal to the operating system we ship (i.e. the Ubuntu archive), or simple bugs or new features, would not normally qualify.
  2. A new upstream version must be the best way to solve the problem.  For example, if a new upstream version includes a small protocol compatibility fix and a large set of user interface changes, then, without any judgement required as to the benefits of the user interface changes, we will normally prefer to backport the protocol compatibility fix to the version currently in Ubuntu.
  3. The upstream developers must be willing to work with Ubuntu. ¬†A responsive upstream who understands Ubuntu’s requirements and is willing to work within them can make things very much easier for us.
  4. The upstream code must be well-tested (in terms of unit and system tests).  It must also be straightforward to run those tests on the actual packages proposed for deployment to Ubuntu users.
  5. Where possible, the package must have minimal interaction with other packages in Ubuntu.  Ensuring that there are no regressions in a library package that requires changes in several of its reverse-dependencies, for example, is significantly harder than ensuring that there are no regressions in a package with a straightforward standalone interface that can simply be tested in isolation. We would not normally accept the former, but might  consider the latter.

Once approved by the Tech Board, the exception must have a documented update policy, e.g.  Based on these guidelines and the core functionality OpenStack serves in Ubuntu Cloud, the Ubuntu Server team did not feel it was in the best interest of their users, nor Ubuntu in general, to pursue an SRU exception.

What about using Ubuntu Backports?

The Ubuntu Backports process (excludes kernel) provides us a mechanism for releasing package updates for stable releases that provide new features or functionality.  Changes were recently made to `apt` in Ubuntu 11.10, whereby it now only installs packages from Backports when they are explicitly requested.  Prior to 11.10, `apt` would install everything from Backports once it was enabled, which led to packages being unintentionally upgraded to newer versions.  The primary drawbacks with using the Backports archive is that the Ubuntu Security team does not provide updates for the archive, it’s a bit of a hassle to enable per package updates, and Canonical doesn’t traditionally offer support services for the packages hosted there.  Furthermore, with each new release of OpenStack, there are other applications that OpenStack depends on that also must be at certain levels.  By having more than one version of OpenStack in the same Backports archive, we run a huge risk of having backward compatibility issues with these dependencies.

How Will You Ensure Stability and Quality?

In order for us to ensure users have a safe and reliable upgrade path, we will establish a QA policy where all new versions and updated dependencies are required to pass a specific set of regression tests with a 100% success rate.  In addition:

  • Unit testing must cover a minimum set of functionality and APIs
  • System test scenarios must be executed for 24, 48 and 72 hours uninterrupted.
  • Package testing must cover: initial installation, upgrades from the previous OpenStack release, and upgrades from the previous LTS and non-LTS Ubuntu release.
  • All test failures must be documented as bugs in Launchpad, with regressions marked Fix Released before the packages are allowed to exit QA.
  • Test results are posted publicly and announced via a mailing list specifically created for this effort only.

Only upon successfully exiting QA will packages be pushed into the Ubuntu Cloud archive.

What Happens With OpenStack Support and Maintenance in 14.04?

Good question.  The cycle could repeat itself, however at this point Canonical is not making such a commitment.  If the rate of innovation and growth of the OpenStack project matures to a point where users become less likely to need the next release for its improved stability and/or quality, and instead just want it for a new feature, then we would likely return to our traditional LTS maintenance and support model.

Ubuntu Server is No Longer the Best OS for Cloud Computing.

Okay, so now that I got your attention….let me explain.

Over this past year and a half (maybe a little longer), I’ve seen Ubuntu Server explode in number and types of deployments, specifically around areas involving cloud computing, but also in situations involving big data and ARM server deployments. ¬†This has all occurred at a time when people and organizations are having to do more with less…less lab space…less power…less people, which of course all leads to the real desire of operating at less financial cost. ¬†I’ve come to the conclusion that me saying we should focus Ubuntu Server on being the best OS for cloud computing at the 11.10 UDS was aiming too low. ¬†It’s awesome that we’ve essentially done this with our OpenStack integration efforts for Ubuntu Cloud, but we can do more…we can do better. ¬†I now believe that for 12.04LTS and beyond, what Ubuntu Server should actually drive towards is being the¬†best OS for scale-out¬†computing. ¬†¬†

Scale-Out is Better than Scale-Up

Scale-out computing is the next evolutionary step in enterprise server computing. It used to be that¬†if you needed an enterprise worthy server you had to buy a¬†machine with a bunch of memory,¬†high-end¬†CPU configuration, and a lot of fast storage. You also¬†needed to plan ahead to ensure what you purchased had enough open CPU and memory slots, as well as drive bays, to make sure you could upgrade when demand required it. ¬†When the capacity limit (cpu, memory, and/or storage) of this server was hit, you had¬†to replace it with a newer, often more expensive one, again planning for upgrades down the road. ¬†Finally, to ensure high availability, you had to have one or two more of these servers with the same configuration. ¬†Companies like Google, Amazon, and Facebook then came along and recognized that they could use low-cost, commodity hardware to build “pizza box” servers to do the same job, instead of relying on expensive, mainframe-like servers that needed costly¬†redundancy built into every deployment. ¬†These organizations realized that they could rely on a lot of cheap, easy-to-find (and replace) servers to¬†effectively do the job a few scaled-up, high-end (and cost) servers could tackle. ¬†More work could be accomplished, with a reduced risk of failure by exploiting the advantages¬†a scale-out solution provided. If a machine were to die in a comparable scale¬≠-up configuration, it would¬†be very costly in both time and money to repair or replace it. ¬†The scale-out approach allowed them to use¬†only what they needed and quickly/easily replace systems when they went down.

Fast¬†forward to today, and we have an explosion of service and infrastructure applications, like Hadoop, Ceph, and OpenStack, architected and built for scale-out deployments. ¬†We even have the Open Compute Project focused on designing servers, racks, and even datacenters to specifically meet the needs of scale-out computing. ¬†It’s clear that scale-out computing is overtaking scale-up as the preferred approach to most of today’s computational challenges.

With Great Scale, Comes Great Management Complexity

It’s not all rainbows and unicorns though…scale-out comes with it’s own inherent problems. ¬†There’s a great paper published by IBM Research called,¬†Scale-up x Scale-out: A Case Study using Nutch/Lucene,¬†where the researchers set out to measure and compare the performance of a scale-up versus scale-out approach to running a combined Nutch/Lucene¬†workload. ¬†Nutch/Lucene is an opensource framework written in Java for implementing¬†search applications consisting of¬†three major components:¬†crawling, indexing, and query. ¬†Their results indicated that “scale-out¬†solutions have an indisputable performance and¬†price/performance advantage over scale-up”, and that “even within a scale-up system, it was¬†more effective to adopt a ‚Äúscale-out-in-a-box‚ÄĚ approach¬†than a pure scale-up to utilize its processors efficiently”,¬†i.e use virtualization technologies like KVM. ¬†However, they also go on to conclude that

scale-out systems are still in a significant¬†disadvantage with respect to scale-up when it comes to¬†systems management. Using the traditional concept of¬†management cost being proportional to the number of¬†images, it is clear that a scale-out solution will have a¬†higher management cost than a scale-up one.”

These disadvantages are precisely what I see Ubuntu Server attempting to account for over the next few years.  I believe that in Ubuntu Server 12.04LTS, we have already started to address these issues in several specific ways.

Power Consumption

One obvious issue with scale-out computing is the need for space to store your servers and provide enough power to run/cool them. ¬†We haven’t figured out how to shrink the size of your server through code, so we can’t help with the space constraints. ¬†However, we have started to develop solutions¬†that can help administrators use less power to run their deployments. For example, we created¬†PowerNap, which is¬†a configurable daemon that can bring a running server to a lower power state according to a set of configuration preferences and triggers.

As a company, Canonical also began¬†investing in supporting processor technologies that focused on delivering a high rate of operations at low-power consumption rates.¬†¬†ARM has a long-standing history of providing processors that use very little power. The potential for server applications, meant you could drive server processor density up and still keep power consumption relatively low. With this greater density, server manufacturers started to see opportunities for building very high speed interconnects that allow these processors to share data and cooperate quickly and easily. ARM server technology companies such as Calxeda can now build computing grids that won’t require watercooling and an in-house backup generator running when you turn them on. ¬†With the Cortex-A9 and Cortex-A15 processors in particular, the performance differential between ARM processors and x86 is starting to shrink significantly. ¬†We are getting closer to having full 64-bit support in the coming ARMv8 processors, that will still retain the low power and low cost heritage of the ARM processor. ¬†Enterprise¬†server manufacturers are already planning to start putting ARM processors into very low-cost, very dense, and very robust systems to provide the kind of functionality, interconnectivity and compute power that used to only be possible in mainframes. ¬†Ubuntu Server 12.04 LTS will support ARM, specifically the hard float compilation configuration (armhf). ¬†With our pre-releases already receiving such good performance reviews, we are excited about the possibilities. ¬†If you want to know more about what we’ve done with ARM for Ubuntu Server, I recommend you start with a great FAQ posted on our wiki.

Support Pricing

Traditional license and subscription support models are built for scale-up solutions, not scale-out. ¬†These offerings either price by number of users or number of cores per machine, which are within reason when deploying onto a small number of machines, i.e. under¬†100…maybe a bit higher depending on the size of the organization. ¬†The base price gets you access to security updates and¬†bug fixes, and you have to pay more to get more, i.e. someone on the phone, email support, custom fixes, etc. ¬†This is still acceptable to most users in a scale-up model.

However, when the solution is scale-out, i.e. 1000s or more, this pricing gets¬†way out of control. ¬†Many of the license and subscription vendors have recently wised up to this, and offer cluster-based pricing, which isn’t necessarily cheap, but certainly much less costly than the per socket/CPU/user approach. ¬†The idea is that you pay for the master or head node, and then can add as many slave nodes as you want for free.

Ubuntu Server provides security updates and¬†maintenance for the life of the release…for free. ¬†That means for an LTS release of Ubuntu Server, users get¬†five years of free maintenance, if you need someone to call or custom solutions, you can pay Canonical for that…but if you don’t…you pay nothing. ¬†It doesn’t matter if you have a few machines or over a 1000, security updates and maintenance for the set of supported packages shipped in Ubuntu is free.

Services Management

Deploying interconnected services across a scale-out deployment is a PITA. After procuring the necessary hardware and finding lab space, you have to physically set them up, install the OS and required applications, and then configure and connect the various applications on each machine to provide the right desired services. Once you’ve deployed the entire solution, upgrading or replacing the service applications, modifying the connections between them, scaling out to account for higher load, and/or writing custom scripts for re-deployment elsewhere requires even more time…and pain.

Juju¬†is our answer to this problem. ¬†It focuses on managing the services you need to deliver a single solution, above simply configuring the machines or cloud instances needed to run them. ¬†It was¬†specifically¬†designed, and built from the ground up, for service orchestration.¬†Through the use of charms, Juju provides you with shareable, re-usable, and repeatable expressions of DevOps best practices. You can use them unmodified, or easily change and connect them to fit your needs. Deploying a charm is similar to installing a package on Ubuntu: ask for it and it‚Äôs there, remove it and it‚Äôs completely gone. ¬†We’ve dramatically improved Juju for Ubuntu Server 12.04LTS, from integrating our charm collection into the client (removing the need for bzr branches) to having rolled out a load of new charms¬†for all the services you need…and probably some you didn’t know you wanted. ¬†As my good friend Jorge Castro says,¬†the Juju Charm Store Will Change the Way You Use Ubuntu Server.

Deployment Tools

In terms of deployment, we recognized this hole in our offering last cycle and rolled out¬†Orchestra¬†as first step, to see what the uptake would be. ¬†Orchestra wasn’t an actual tool or product, but a meta-package pointing to existing technologies like cobbler, already in our archive. ¬†We simply ensured the tools we recommended worked, so that in 11.10 you can deploy Ubuntu Server across a cluster of machines easily.

After 11.10 released, we realized we could extend the idea from simple, multi-node OS install and deployment, to a more complex offering of multi-node service install and deployment.  This effort would require us to do more than just integrate existing projects, so we decided to create our own project called MAAS (metal as a service), which would be tied into Juju, our service orchestration tool.

Ubuntu 12.04 LTS will include Canonical’s MAAS solution, making it trivial to deploy services such as OpenStack, Hadoop, and Cloud Foundry on your servers. Nodes can be allocated directly to a managed service, or simply have Ubuntu installed for manual configuration and setup.  MAAS lets you treat farms of servers as a malleable resource for allocation to specific problems, and re-allocation on a dynamic basis.  Using a pretty slick user interface, administrators can connect, commission and deploy physical servers in record time, re-allocate nodes between services dynamically, and keep them all up to date and in due course.

We’ve Come a Long Way, But

There’s a lot more we need to do. ¬†What if the MAAS commissioning process included hardware configuration, for example RAID setup and firmware updates? ¬†What if you could deploy and orchestrate your services by mouse click or touch…never touching a keyboard? ¬†What if your services were allocated to machines based on power footprint? ¬†What if your bare metal deployment¬†could also be aware of the Canonical hardware certification database for systems and components, allowing you to quickly identify systems that are fully certified or might have potentially problematic components? ¬†What if your services auto-scaled based on load without you having to be involved? ¬†What if you could have a¬†true hybrid cloud solution, bursting up to a public cloud(s) of your choosing without ever having to rewrite or rearchitect your services? ¬†These types of questions are just some of the challenges we look to take on over the next few releases, and if any of it interests you…I encourage you to¬†please join us.

Juju is just too damn easy!

The title says it all. ¬†If I can pick it up in a few days…anybody¬†can ;-). ¬†From locally via LXC to an AWS API compatible cloud to even bare metal via Ubuntu OrchestraJuju makes deploying/controlling/scaling services insanely simple. ¬†Over my holiday break I felt the need to create a video¬†homage¬†to show just how easy it is…and so I present the following…I chose to deploy ThinkUp (because it’s awesome)¬†with a fitting music track from the Commordores. ¬†Enjoy!

If I find time, I’ll create another with hadoop…music and theme TBD ūüėõ

Ubuntu is the OS for the Cloud, and here’s why…

Over the last few days, I felt the compelling need to explain why I think Ubuntu is the best operating system for the cloud. In my mind, it comes down to three key differentiators that I think benefit both users and the overall advancement of the cloud.

1: Ubuntu Supports the Latest Technologies

Cloud computing and the technologies surrounding it are advancing at an absolutely incredible pace of innovation. ¬†Consider how fast OpenStack has matured in the last year, the recent explosion of Hadoop solutions, and the entire movement around Open Computing. ¬†Legacy “enterprise” Linux solutions simply cannot keep up given their existing release processes. ¬†Users of the cloud and other scale-out technologies can’t afford to wait years for the next supported release to come, especially when that release is destined to be out-of-date the day of release, due to the slow-moving technology transition model utilized by the distribution provider, i.e. opensource project foo releases at time¬†A, then it gets into the “community” version of the release at time B six or more months later, then it *might* get put into the enterprise version at a much¬†later time (years) C.

If you ask these legacy distributions why they move so slow, they’ll undoubtedly say it’s because they are aligning with the hardware release cycles of most server OEMs, which is absolutely true. This is why I’m so excited by the Open Compute Project and it’s potential to reduce what¬†Andreas “Andy” Bechtolsheim recently called gratuitous differentiation in a keynote discussion at this year’s Open Compute Summit in NYC. ¬†In short, most OEMs have traditionally introduced features that are more about customer lock-in, than really answering their customer’s needs, e.g. releasing a new blade, that requires a new bladecenter, that won’t work with the older model nor work in another OEMs bladecenter…or even worse, having special server racks to match their servers, that won’t work with anyone elses…insane! The only benefit I’ve seen from gratuitous server technology differentiation is that it’s probably a big reason why so many businesses have jumped to the cloud…where they don’t have to worry about this stuff anymore. Hopefully, we can avoid having different APIs and custom Linux distributions by each cloud service provider, as I feel these are just more attempts at customer lock-in, and don’t really provide that much value to the users themselves.

Legacy Linux distributions also like to tout their ABI compatibility, that they enforce for the benefit of their customers and ISV partners. The logic is that by guaranteeing ABI at the kernel and plumbing layer throughout a given release and its updates, ISVs and their customers are assured that their applications (assuming they don’t change) will work for the life of the release. Besides again fitting to the slow-paced legacy OEM server release model, this makes perfect sense in a legacy server software world too. An ISV can build a release once, and then issue fixes thereafter, until the next major release in a year or so. As we move toward a faster-paced, continuous integration, scale-out computing world, ABI compatibility becomes more of a hinderance than advantage for users. The rate of innovation is now so fast, that even packaging certain webscale applications is frowned upon by the upstreams that provide them because they don’t want their user’s experience limited to a distributions release cycle. Also, it becomes difficult, to sometimes impossible, for most of the legacy Linux distributions to introduce new hardware architectures, i.e. ARM server support, post release. Server OEMs are forced to either go through the pain of backporting huge amounts of code into a forked kernel (that receives little outside testing), slip out their own hardware roadmaps to match the distribution release cycle, or try to convince (usually with money) the legacy Linux distributor to issue some “special” release to accommodate them.

Canonical’s Ubuntu Support Model is Scale-out Friendly

Ubuntu is free, and Canonical has made the promise that it always will be. By free, we mean no license fees or paid subscriptions to receive updates. Around 10 years ago when the first legacy Linux distributions were coming about, the movement to a subscription-based model was seen as a revolutionary change in the software business. Instead of charging licenses at a per user base, which was the accepted model for operating systems and software as a whole at the time (in addition to support contracts), these companies had the ingenious approach of giving away the software, and creating an updates subscription model. Realizing that software requires updates, and that most (but not all) users will want them, they created a system that allowed them dependable, consistent revenue per installation, while giving customers the freedom to have as many users on the system they needed, as well as machines that simply sit and do their job, never needing an update (think mail or DNS server). Later on, they partnered with server OEMs and brilliantly started to differentiate these subscription costs based on the architectures and cpu cores of the hardware…learning tricks the OEMs had played with their own proprietary operating systems of the day.

The subscription + support model has done well…extremely well over the past decade, but in the cloud…in scale-out computing, the model begins to hurt…extremely in some cases. One of the main benefits of cloud computing is the ability to scale on demand. A given deployment can have a guest instance count in the low 10s for 6 months, but then need to scale out to the 100s or 1000s for another 4, returning back to original levels after peak demand has subsided, e.g. demands on online retail infrastructure increase dramatically during the holidays and then subside soon after. For a subscription-based model, these means customers must budget for an increase in fees to account for the scaling, and if they underestimate, their own profits are impacted because of it. Furthermore, making someone pay for fixes and security updates just seems wrong to me…what if Google or Mozilla started charging people for fixes and security updates for their web browsers…people would lose their minds. Finally, because applications (especially scale-out/webscale ones) are innovating so fast now…adopting new development methodologies like continuous integration, it’s unthinkable that someone would deploy software and never want the updates. Charging someone for fixes and updates is now as archaic as charging them for the number of users.

The service model is the next evolutionary step, away from the subscription model. It recognizes that a Linux distributors real value to the customer is the expertise they have from producing the distribution, having the upstream relationships, and knowing the integrated technologies, inside and out. Thus, the business model is built around the support and services they are able to provide because of their unique position, not the bug fixes and security updates that users should expect to get for the same cost as they received the original software…free.

Ubuntu’s Release Process is Dependable and Transparent

To the average consumer, I suspect the Ubuntu release cadence is not much more than a nice thing to have. There’s no need to speculate on when the next release is, or what it will have, because we plan transparently. While we always deliver on a 6 month cadence, users aren’t forced to upgrade that often, as we support each release for 18 months…and up to 5 years for the LTS that comes every 2 years. And yet, despite having such a predictable release cycle, we still manage to generate more growing excitement for each one (personally that’s just amazing to me).

Now if you’re someone deploying a private cloud, a solution into a cloud, or even releasing hardware focused at the cloud, the cadence becomes less of a “nice thing” and more of a necessity. Whether your planning a hardware or software release, being able to depend on an operating system release schedule not slipping is a huge benefit and relief. There are enough internal moving parts to any significant software or hardware release project, then add the rapid pace of cloud innovation, and no one wants to then worry that your entire business plan can be jeopardized by the OS vendor slipping out their release schedule…to accommodate a partner, possibly even your direct competitor.

A dependable, transparent release process not only provides peace of mind, it allows for the best possible collaboration. Transparency allows users, partners, and upstreams alike, to observe and influence the direction of each Ubuntu release. There’s no waiting for the first pre-release ISO to see if your feature made it in, or if this next ISO will boots on your new hardware, because you can track every bug and feature work item. As part of our transparent and dependable process, we produce pre-release Ubuntu ISOs and cloud images daily. While each daily isn’t guaranteed to be installable, bootable, or tested to the level of an alpha or beta release, it’s usually good enough to give users and partners something to sniff out and provide feedback on…giving them confidence their cloud solution that depends on our OS won’t be in jeopardy at release. You won’t find this with legacy Linux distributions…not even their closest business partners get this level of access.

We’re Not Perfect…

As I’ve said in the past, Canonical’s investment in Ubuntu Server is focused on cloud computing. So to be clear – While we have a tremendous community to look after the quality of support for traditional server workloads and a solid inheritance of dependability and stability from Debian, I would be lying to you if I said Ubuntu is the best choice for every type of server deployment. Hell, I challenge anyone to name one operating system that really is. All I’m saying is that Ubuntu is the best operating system for cloud computing….and Canonical will continue to focus our innovation to ensure it stays that way.

Smart != Success

The Back Story

Having been in the technology field all my adult life, as both a student and professional, I’m used to working with extremely bright people…what most would consider people with “high I.Q.s”. ¬†I have friends and family who often characterize me as being “smart” or a “genius”, of which I usually respond with a smile…and then let them know right away…that there are loads¬†more people I know and work with much smarter than I. ¬†I take great pride in my ignorance, as it keeps me humble and hungry for improvement and knowledge. ¬†In my quest for “less ignorance” I recently decided to re-read a book I picked up years back, when I was studying for my Engineering Management masters degree…recent events had me questioning certain truths I hold dear, so I figured I should re-evaluate them. ¬† The book is called “Working with Emotional Intelligence”, by Daniel Goleman, PhD. ¬†Doctor Goleman is an excepted expert of¬†behavioral¬†and brain sciences, and has a series of books on the subject of emotional intelligence. ¬†I stumbled across his earlier book, simply called “Emotional Intelligence” while in a book store, and just the book jacket¬†synopsis¬†was enough for me to buy it…and I’ve been a true believer of the concept ever since. ¬†Basically, he argues that how we’ve typically defined and measured “intelligence” has been far to narrow, ignoring a critical range of abilities that matter tremendously in determining how we succeed in life. ¬†How do we explain why people with high IQs fail in life, while those with average traditional IQ scores succeeding amazingly well. ¬†He suggests that factors such as self-awareness, self-discipline, empathy, etc are incorrectly left out of typical I.Q. measurements, and that these should be included when evaluating an individuals capacity…that the emotional IQ is more important to success than most imagine.

Trained Emotional Incapacity

In Dr Goleman’s book, there’s short section called “The Computer Nerd: Trained Incapacity”, which resonated so much with me, that I felt the need to share it. ¬†Goleman starts out with what most have observed, that many people in IT with high level of technical skill often have a hard time dealing with people. ¬†He states that he used to think it was just a negative stereotype, or “cultural misperception”, because he assumed one’s emotional intelligence and traditional IQ were independent of each other. ¬†However he continues to discuss how a colleague at MIT of his observed that people with extremely high levels of IQ often lacked social skills…that the smarter they are the less competent they seem to be emotionally and socially. “It’s as though the IQ muscle strengthened itself at the expense of muscles for personal and social competence.” ¬†He writes about how the mastery of technical pursuits demanded long hours…often spent working alone…starting early on in childhood or teenage years….a critical period in emotional development. ¬†He also states that self-selection plays a role, in that people lacking in sufficient emotional intelligence are probably drawn to study fields such as computer science or engineering…because cognitive excellence is stressed over anything else.

The Secret to Success

To be clear, Goleman is not implying that all high-IQ scientists are socially incompetent, that would be stupid. ¬†However, what he is suggesting is that people with good emotional intelligence in a technology field are in high demand,i.e. someone with “high science skills and high social skills” has the potential to be a highly successful in an engineering or technical organization. ¬†Dr. Goleman goes further to site a UC Berkeley study from the 1950s, where 80 PhD students in science were tested for IQ and personality competence, along with extensive interviews with¬†psychologists, all to measure emotional balance and maturity, integrity, and interpersonal effectiveness. ¬†Forty years later, researchers tracked the surviving students down and made estimates on their career success based on resumes, evaluations by experts in their field, and credible scientific publications. ¬†The result was that the emotional intelligence abilities were four times more important in determining professional success and prestige than traditional IQ.

The Bottom Line

If you are in a technology field and interested in management or even team leadership, don’t assume that just because you can code the best or solve the most technically challenging problems the fastest, that you can lead or manage people. ¬†On the flip side, if you find yourself sometimes struggling to keep up with other engineers on your team, or just not picking things up as quickly, don’t let that deter you from pursuing a leadership position. ¬† There is more to succeeding as a leader than simply being the smartest person in the room. ūüėČ