Joe Baguley:The real challenge that has been highlighted at CloudScape VII is the legislation angle. To a certain extent legislators are behind in terms of what they are doing in Cloud policies. Certainly around privacy regulations and directives around privacy, there is a long way to catch up and a lot of work to do. The good thing is that there is a new administration and some new people in DG Connect, looking at what we can do differently. They have been very engaged in both listening to users and industry at the CloudScape VII Conference.
The NIST representative talked about setting up the roadmap for Cloud and then actually went out to do it for real in a real-life US government organisation, and then give feedback on what went wrong in the NIST roadmap, what was missing and what should be modified.
CloudScape brings together all the constituents, ranging from end users all the way through to policy makers, and everyone in between, including vendors, to have an open and honest discussion.
Primeur magazine: Is there a role for mobile devices in Cloud computing?</em>
Joe Baguley:The challenge you have got with that is not necessarily around privacy, it is about battery life. In the spare time of your mobile device you are running cycles to cure cancer or look for aliens which is going to use up more of the battery. The incentives for users to be able to do that, have to be pretty high for them to sacrifice what is seen by many people as precious battery life. The huge market for battery chargers gives you an idea of how much pain battery life actually is for consumers of mobile devices. We have a long way to go from a base technology perspective before that becomes a reality.
Apple has announced a new MacBook. The MacSafe connector is great but the new MacBook is a device that is not meant to be plugged in all the time. It is like a iPhone: charged, used, and then charged again. We are moving to a model where we are not so plugged in all the time with our devices which is better.
Primeur Magazine: Is the role of VMware going to expand and will more people apply this type of technology or does everybody tends to stick to the open source type of solutions?
Joe Baguley:VMware is very focused on providing customers with choice, that is essentially what the company is doing. VMware is looking at providing an offering that allows customers the choice of provider. If you choose VMware as the technology that you use in your environment, you have a choice of running a hybrid version, whether in our public Cloud, called vCloud Air, which is available today in Germany and in the UK, or alternatively in any of our vCloud Air providers who are present in any member state of the European Union. If you do want to use that technology, you can do it today, without so many of the concerns that you may have with other Cloud providers, who might be US-located and you are worried about where your data is, if that is a valid and legitimate concern for you.
The other thing to understand is that, looking at a broader picture of VMware, the company has this basis which is called the software-defined data centre and on top of that, you have the hybrid Cloud where public and private Cloud are coming together, but on top of that, you've got AirWatch which is for management of mobile devices, and control and delivery of content. Really, that is the focus, having access to applications and data security on any device, anywhere. The VMware package makes sure that end users have access to applications and data anywhere. On the back-end it is all about making sure that they have choice.
VMware is introducing open source technologies. The recent release of VMware's own OpenStack is exactly that. The company released at the beginning of this year a product, which is VMware integrated OpenStack. If you do decide as a consumer you want to use OpenStack to help people access your Cloud you can download the appliance for free if you are a VMware customer. You can install it and run OpenStack.
Primeur magazine OpenStack is one of the possibilities to manage large hybrid and interoperable Clouds. There are several other ones which didn't really make it. In Europe, there was a lot of time and money spent on Open Nebula, for instance.</em>
Joe Baguley:We have to come at a differentiation between the academic and the commercial world. The only place I ever heard of Open Nebula was in the academic world. In the commercial world, it is only ever been OpenStack, since three or four years ago, when it first came out.
OpenStack does not necessarily guarantee you interoperability. It gives you an API that allows you to standardize how you talk to Clouds and that is important. Just because someone is running OpenStack doesn't mean it is enough. You have to ask questions on what kind of implementation is being used, how it is configured, and so on, just to understand how and whether the workloads would be portable or not. If someone is running VMware's vCloud then you know you can freely move workloads between Clouds.
Is it worthwhile for an organisation to develop skills in building Clouds? Is it going to make the organisation better or worse? If it is not a differentiation between what the organisation is doing and the other organisations out there, then don't do it, don't buy off-the-shelf from VMware or any other company.
Primeur magazine If Open Nebula is not used as a whole package, that does not mean that it is not usable at all. What do you think?</em>
Joe Baguley:There are a lot of commercial organisations, including Atos, involved in it. There has been a lot of European money gone into it, indeed. But if you are asking about the success of it, I never had a conversation with a commercial customer who discussed Open Nebula with him.
Primeur magazine Is there any advice you can give to the European Commission?
Joe Baguley:I talked to some of the policy makers at CloudScape. It is a question of collaboration. The legal side of things certainly is behind. Both commercial and end users have to come together, not necessarily governments. Sometimes, technology moves so fast, compared to the machinations of government. Legislation is a slow process by necessity. It should not be any quicker. If it moves faster, then mistakes are being made. It is a long, laborious process. If you look at the fact that it takes at least five years, if not more, to get any new directives, five years is a very long time in technology. Technology moves so fast that we could end up being very carefully in what we are doing.