Key Factors to Consider During Containerization with Travis Jeppson

Key Factors to Consider During Containerization with Travis Jeppson

Some of the highlights of the show include

  • How containerization enabled Nav to spread roughly 250 virtual machines across multiple environments, while drastically reducing infrastructure spend
  • Travis’s thoughts on buying cloud native software tools versus building them, and what engineers should consider during this process
  • The difficulty of finding security solutions that work inside of a cloud-native ecosystem
  • Why companies should expect to encounter unique challenges when migrating to Kubernetes
  • Why companies need to understand their end goal, and determine an overall objective before beginning a migration
  • Travis’s must-have engineering tool, and why he can’t live without it


Links


Transcript


Announcer: Welcome to The Business of Cloud Native Podcast where we explore how end users talk and think about the transition to Kubernetes and cloud-native architectures.



Emily: Welcome to The Business of Cloud Native. I’m Emily Omier, your host. And today I’m here with Travis Jeppson. Travis is currently at Kasten, but he’s also going to talk about his time as a director of engineering at Nav.



Travis: At Nav, my role shifted quite a bit while I was there. I started as a software developer, writing Ruby back end applications for them, and then shifted into—actually within a month of being there, they shifted me over to the operational side because I had previous experience working with containerization, and also in infrastructure. So, they quickly moved me over into that realm and from there, I worked there for about a year until they told me, go spin up a team and get things moving. Help us move to containerization. Help us move to a more modern infrastructure and stuff. And so, about a year after that I became a director of engineering to where I had our ops team that had spun up, and then I also acquired both our QA team and our IT team that was there. And then, about a year after that, I ended up acquiring a little bit more than that. So, I ended up with a fair amount of our front end and some of our backend teams as well, and where they moved me into the senior director position. So, a day in the life, towards the end of when I was at Nav was a lot of working with the teams, helping them to do a lot of architectural perspective, and changes, and outlook to where we were trying to get as far as the company is concerned. We were building a product that we could address both first-party customers where they would log in to the Nav website directly, as well as working with partners so that we could issue out Nav functionality to those partners that they could incorporate to their pages as well. And so, we worked very hard to try to segment those two pieces together so that what we were building could be dispersed between both first-party customers and our third-party customers. And so, towards the end of my time there, it ended up being a lot of working within all of engineering to help facilitate those purposes. Then, just about six months ago, I ended up shifting my role over to a company called Kasten. And, Kasten is strictly working within the Kubernetes ecosystem. So, we do data management for Kubernetes based applications, and I am the site lead in Utah for Kasten, and so my day in and day out, a lot is, it's, kind of, all over the place. Sometimes it's working with engineering to help figure out some things going on there, sometimes it's working with brokers to help find office space for it. And sometimes it's dealing with insurance. It ended up being quite dynamic. But overall, I'd say most of my time is really spent more on the engineering side, just from the perspective of having worked at Nav and having been a consumer of a lot of these technologies, I think that they really appreciate my insights that I'm able to give there. So, I end up working, a lot, with the engineers to help facilitate what we're doing.



Emily: Sounds like you end up serving as a bridge from having been an end-user. But do you think that there is common miscommunications that happen, or what do those conversations sound like? Why is that experience valuable?



Travis: Yeah, so I don't know if it's as much as a miscommunication as much as what are customers looking for? And what are they trying to achieve? And why are they purchasing different software solutions? And what makes sense for them, more than anything. And I think that, having been a consumer of those products, I was more or less on the front lines there. When I was building our operational team at Nav, that was basically what I was doing is trying to figure out what things are we going to spend time on? And what things are we going to build ourselves, or what things do we need to just go find a solution for and bring them in-house? And the funny thing is when I was doing that for Nav is actually when I was introduced to Kasten and to the CEO here. And so, that ended up changing the way my career went. But overall, I think what Kasten—what those conversations really end up becoming is what are customers trying to do, and where are they trying to go?



Emily: Yeah, and in fact, that is exactly what I want to talk about more on this podcast. So, tell me a little bit about what your experience at Nav was. What were you looking for? What did you want to prioritize? What was the company hoping to get out of moving to containers?



Travis: So, I would say maybe the piece that really facilitated a lot of the progress in that sense was starting to understand our infrastructure spend. And then, to couple with that was also trying to become more agile. More agile in the sense of being able to push on demand, where previous to that we were pushing—you know, when we push our code, we did it on a bi-weekly basis—well, every other week, and it was always very cumbersome. If we have pictures of us in the early days of Nav, where there would be 10 engineers around someone’s desk, and they were the one person that was pushing the code into production, just waiting for the other shoe to fall, or waiting for something to happen. And so, when I started doing operational things for Nav, it started addressing those two things. What can we do to help control our infrastructure, and to understand it a little bit better? And how can we also create more of a dynamic infrastructure? Like, Nav is very much a US-based company. And so, the traffic that we're getting onto our website was regional very, very much. And so, there would be periods where it would be very busy, and then there'd be periods where it wasn’t. And the way that our infrastructure was designed, and a lot of times the way that they are designed, especially with virtual machines, is that you're building for capacity. You're building to be able to handle that load, and that has to stay there all the time, regardless of whether that capacity is being used or not. And so, that was one of the biggest questions, and that bill was—we were completely in the clouds. We were completely in AWS, but that bill continued to get more and more expensive every month. To the point of where it warranted the executive team to come down and say, “This needs to be fixed. This is going at an outrageous pace, and we need to be able to figure out how to control this.” And so, that's when they came to me and said, “Okay, get a team spun up, and let's figure out how to control this.” And so, I would say that those wer...

Jaksot(267)

Go-To-Market for Open Source Companies with Quentin Sinig

Go-To-Market for Open Source Companies with Quentin Sinig

This week on The Business of Open Source, I spoke with Quentin Sinig, who has been the first “business” hire at three open source companies; Strapi, Kestra and now Pruna.ai. We covered a lot of ground in this conversation, which was especially interesting because it spanned three open source companies so we were able to talk about patterns Quentin saw at all of them, as well as how the ecosystem is changing now. We talked about the need to find product-market fit, particularly in the AI era — Quentin says that AI companies need to find product-market fit constantly, because the ecosystem is changing so quickly. Quentin mentioned hearing from an advisor earlier in his career that you can’t focus on both usage and revenue — but that in some ways you are forced to focus on both, especially now. When I asked how you decide which of the two goals you should throw more resources behind, he couldn’t say… it’s such a case-by-case decision that there isn’t an easy formula for deciding. Lastly, I had a burning question: What actually does go-to-market mean? And what does it mean to be a “Head of Go To Market?” Quentin says that to a large extent it’s a euphemism for sales, but there’s a little more to it than just that. In his mind, Go-To-Market is a much less siloed function than sales. It’s about getting the entire company aligned, in the expectation that ultimately that will lead to sales. But it’s not just about forcing prospects down the funnel or cold calling, either. Want to talk more about the specifics of go-to-market for open source companies, with people who have been there? You should join Open Source Founders Summit, an in-person conference for leadership in open source companies. The next edition will be May 18th and 19th, 2026 in Paris. And curious about my consulting options? Check out how I help open source companies here.

24 Syys 34min

Open Foundations with Or Weis

Open Foundations with Or Weis

This week on The Business of Open Source, I spoke to Or Weis, the CEO and co-founder of Permit.io. Or is a serial entrepreneur who has had a long career in developer tools. We talked about Permit’s relationship with open source, including of course the open source projects that they create and maintain. One thing to note is that none of Permit’s open source projects are branded as “Permit.” They are all separate from the permit.io brand. On the other hand, Or talked about the essential balancing act for open source companies… figuring out the balance between what goes in the open source project and what goes in the commercial offering. “Companies that get it wrong die, and companies that get it right end up flourishing,” he said. Or Weiss has a theory about open source businesses that he calls ‘open foundations.’ He thinks that this model is better than open core — to be honest I think open foundations is a type of open core, but I think that Or’s argument about how to do open core are fundamentally correct. Permit’s primary open source project is OPAL, and the way that Or puts it is that Permit uses OPAL, but it is not OPAL. The two pieces of software are different and have different value propositions. He also talked about how important it is for everyone to understand what features belong in the project and what belongs in the product… by ‘everyone’ he means product managers in your team but also members of the open source community. We also talked about how you have to have a moat for your product, and especially with AI coding tools a lot of models do not have a moat anymore. Which is why he doesn’t think that just SSO and a fancy UI are enough of a difference between project and product anymore. If you are interested in having more conversations about building open source businesses, join us next May in Paris at Open Source Founders Summit!

17 Syys 37min

Straddling open source software and the hardware industry with Rob Taylor

Straddling open source software and the hardware industry with Rob Taylor

This week on The Business of Open Source, I spoke with Rob Taylor, CTO/CSO and founder of ChipFlow. Although ChipFlow is unambiguously a software company, it creates software that facilitate the creation of semiconductors, so it straddles the software and hardware worlds.Some of the things we talked about include: The state of open source in the semiconductor space, and why that matters. A large part of it is the high cost of proprietary software for chip design, and the fact that there are a lot of barriers to entry, both for the design software and to chip creation. Rob also talked about how an open source approach is the only way to bridge between research institutions and universities and the commercial world — too often, researchers would do brilliant work during a Ph.D. program and then it would be completely lost when they entered the commercial world. On the other hand, open source is little-known and mistrusted in the semiconductor space. Rob described it as a marketing liability, which is why it’s downplayed on the company webpage. —> I come across this more often than is often recognized inside the open source bubble. It’s one thing to build an open source company in the software infrastructure space, where open source has a positive reputation and is often seen as simply table stakes; it’s quite another to build an open source company in a conservative industry where open source doesn’t have a positive image. Perhaps the most interesting thing is that this means you have to have a reason other than marketing to build and maintain the open source project. Want to join others to talk about the challenges and opportunities in building open source companies? Join us at Open Source Founders Summit next spring in Paris.

10 Syys 34min

The double-edged sword of big initial customers with Taco Potze

The double-edged sword of big initial customers with Taco Potze

This week I’m back from vacation and I have a new episode of The Business of Open Source, with Taco Potze! Taco is the co-founder and CEO of Open Social. A couple interesting takeaways from our conversation: When you’re transitioning from a services company to a product company, it’s much easier if the product you work on is connected to the services your clients are already paying for. Landing a huge customer, particularly if it’s your first customer, can be a double-edged sword. On the one hand you have a lot of revenue, but you also risk becoming your customer’s servant and losing control of your product’s roadmap. You can’t do everything; and particularly you can’t build a product that meets the needs of small, medium and large organizations. Sometimes you need to re-launch / reposition. Open Social recently completely changed their positioning earlier this year in response to changes in the marketplace and how their customers were use the product. Customers might not care about open source, but they care very much about lock-in, exit costs, and data sovereignty. This is all a part of risk management that CIOs are thinking about a lot. Some organizations use both the self-hosted and the SaaS product. One of the biggest / most instructive mistakes they made was maintaining completely separate codebases. When they invested in merging the codebases, it dramatically improved the customer experience in relation to updates, bug fixes and simplicity of the engineering effort.  We talked about Open Source Founders Summit at the end — and which is where I first met Taco. If you’re interested in joining us in 2026, sign up for the newsletter! Tickets will be on sale soon.

3 Syys 39min

Build for Dual Audiences with Pablo Ruiz-Muzquiz

Build for Dual Audiences with Pablo Ruiz-Muzquiz

This week on The Business of Open Source, I spoke with Pablo Ruiz-Muzquiz, CEO and co-founder of Penpot. We started out by talking about the transition from services company to product company, how they decided to pivot to building a product company and when they made the decision to go all-in on the product. Perhaps the most interesting part of the conversation is the discussion of the business model. It’s almost like open core in reverse. Penpot open source is fully featured and very flexible; but there’s a separate product available for business stakeholders to control how Penpot is used in their organizations. So when you need gouvernance and control, you should pay for the additional product to control Penpot usage in your organization. But if you don’t need to limit how Penpot is used at all, you (and everyone else in your organization) can use the open source version without the additional controls. We also talked about dual audiences. Penpot has to appeal to designers and developers, and building something (and ultimately marketing/selling it) that has to appeal to two very different stakeholders. We talked about how the company manages that balance, and why they want to have more developers using Penpot than designers. We talked a bit about Open Source Founders Summit as well. If you’re interested in learning from other founders and leaders in open source companies, join us at Open Source Founders Summit in Paris!

2 Heinä 39min

Managing community contributors with Alya Abbott

Managing community contributors with Alya Abbott

This week on The Business of Open Source I talked with Alya Abbott, COO of Zulip, about managing community contributors. This is a hot topic for open source companies — and for that matter, open source projects in general, including those that aren’t being monetized in any way. It’s a bit of a third rail in the open source ecosystem to suggest that there’s a downside to community contributions, but there undoubtably is. At Zulip, they think about the contribution process as a product. They think about the contributor experience and making it as easy as possible for new contributors to get started. They even did user experience testing on the developer experience for contributors — and made changes as a result. And why does this even matter? Because when it’s done right, community contributors can end up increasing your development velocity. Especially on things like integrations, the community contributors can really push things forward. There’s much more to this episode, so check it out! And if you’d like more content about open source companies, or if you’re the leader of an open source company, join the mailing list for Open Source Founders Summit.

25 Kesä 36min

Building a Dual Growth Flywheel at GitLab with Nick Veenhof

Building a Dual Growth Flywheel at GitLab with Nick Veenhof

This week on The Business of Open Source, I spoke with Nick Veenhof, Director of Contributor Success at GitLab. GitLab has probably the most well-articulated open source strategy out there, and we talked about the two main prongs of that strategy, the co-create strategy and the dual flywheel strategy. We also talked about incentivizing individuals versus incentivizing companies and how to build recognition system as part of the way to encourage people to contribute. We also talked about how to make sure that contributing is accessible — thinking about the “time to success” for contributors in a similar way as how you would think about time to value for software users. The dual flywheel strategy This strategy is based on the idea that as an open source company you want to simultaneously push growth in your open source user base and your customer base, and that the two should reinforce each other.  The co-create strategyThe co-create strategy involves encouraging paying customers to contribute to the open source project. In other words, customers who are already paying are encouraged to also invest engineering resources to improve the product. Nick said that this has obvious benefits for GitLab, but it also has benefits for the customers. They end up with a much better understanding of the product, and end up getting more out of the product then they would otherwise. If you want to learn more, I highly recommend having a look at the GitLab Handbook, particularly the section on strategy. And if you want more information about working with me, check out the options here.

18 Kesä 36min

Solving Universal, Persistant Problems with David Aronchick

Solving Universal, Persistant Problems with David Aronchick

This week on The Business of Open Source, I spoke with David Aronchick, CEO and founder of Expanso, about luck and timing, building into universal truths and the reasons for Kubernetes’ success. Before David founded Expanso (which is behind the project Bacalhau), he was the first non-founding PM on the Kubernetes project, and we kicked off by talking a bit about what made Kubernetes so successful… and you probably can guess that it didn’t have to do with having the most awesome technology. A big part of it was that it was the right time and a number of factors in the larger ecosystem were aligned in favor of making Kubernetes a success. It comes down to luck and building to where the puck is going… so how do you know where the puck is going to be a year from now? David talks about selling into basic truths. If you’re pegged to a specific technology, you’re putting yourself at huge risk. But if you are solving a problem that has always been a problem and is likely to continue to be a problem, you are more likely to be successful. We also talked about Adam Jacob’s talk on building a business around open source that he gave at KubeCon Salt Lake City, which you should definitely listen to. Adam Jacob also came on this podcast a year ago, and you should also listen to the episode he did. Lastly, we talked about how hard GTM is, and how David would invest way more into GTM, starting much earlier, if he could start over again. David was at Open Source Founders Summit this year, and you should come next year too!

11 Kesä 45min

Suosittua kategoriassa Liike-elämä ja talous

sijotuskasti
mimmit-sijoittaa
psykopodiaa-podcast
puheenaihe
rss-rahapodi
ostan-asuntoja-podcast
rss-lahtijat
pomojen-suusta
rss-rahamania
rss-startup-ministerio
rss-turvacast
taloudellinen-mielenrauha
rss-neuvottelija-sami-miettinen
rahapuhetta
rss-h-asselmoilanen
oppimisen-psykologia
kasvun-kipuja
sijoituspodi
hyva-paha-johtaminen
rss-40-ajatusta-aanesta