They sell servers, but as a finished product. Not as a cobbled together mess of third party stuff where the vendor keeps shrugging if there is an integration problem. They integrated it. It comes with all the features they expect you to want if you wanted to build your own cloud.
Also, they wrote the software. And it's all open source. So no "sorry but the third party vendor dropped support for the bios". You get the source code. Even if Oxide goes bust, you can still salvage things in a pinch.
Ironically this looks like the realization of Richard Stallman's dream where users can help each other if something doesn't work.
Its a huge deal. I'm biased though because my own takes on how things should evolve were very similar. I was however completely unsuccessful in getting those ideas into production! And that, that is a huge deal. Through out my career it has been interesting to meet people with great ideas and then they are unable to get them into production, and when the idea does come into production everyone feels like "Wow, this is so obvious why didn't we do it sooner?" and some folks are banging their head against the wall :-).
One of the more interesting discussions I had during my tenure at Google was about the "size" of the unit of clusters. If you toured Google you got the whole "millions of cheap replaceable computers" mantra. Sitting in Building 42 was a "rack" which had cheap PC motherboards on "pizza dishes" without all that superfluous sheet metal. Bunches of these in a rack and a festoon of network cables. What are the "first class" elements of these machines? Compute? Networking? Storage? Did you replace components? Or a whole "pizza slice" (which Google called an 'index' at the time). Really a great systems analysis problem.
FWIW I'm more of a "chunk" guy (which is the direction 0xide went) and less of a "cluster" guy (which is the way Google organized their infrastructure). A lot of people associated with 0xide are folks I worked with at Sun in the early days and during that period the first hints of "beowulf" clusters vs "super computers", was memory one thing (UMA) or did it vary from place to place (NUMA). I have a paper I wrote from that time about "compute viscosity" where the effective compute rate (which at the time largely focused on transactional databases) scaled up with resource (more memory more transactions/sec for example) and scaled down with viscosity (higher latencies to get to state meant fewer transactions/sec) Sun was invested heavily in the TPC-C benchmarks at the time but they were just one load pattern one could optimize for.
These guys have capitalized on all that history and it is fucking amazing! I just hope they don't get killed by acquisition[1].
[1] KbA is a technique where people who are invested in the status quo and have resources available use those resources to force the investors in a disruptive technology to sell to them and then they quietly bury the disruptive technology.
Can you clarify a bit on what you mean by "chunk" guy? Are you alluding to the ability to distribute work by an isolation mechanism such as cgroups vs machine a-la borg/google?
> I just hope they don't get killed by acquisition.
Private equity in the US has collectively determined that no company shall exist outside of investment ownership. I don't know what the ownership structure looks like, but generally speaking, it seems that nearly everyone has a "fuck you" number. Now that Oxide is venturing into Dell and HP's turf, I worry someone will get a fix on what Brian's number is.
Coupling vs Decoupling is not some one-sided thing. It's a major trade-off.
One of the most obvious examples of the problem with this approach is that they're shipping previous generation servers on Day 1. One can easily buy current generation AMD servers from a number of vendors.
They will also likely charge a significant premium over decoupled vendors that are forced to compete head-to-head for a specific role (server vendor, switch vendor, etc).
Their coupling approach will most likely leave them perpetually behind and more expensive.
But there are advantages too. Their stuff should be simpler to use and require less in-house expertise to operate well.
This is probably a reasonable trade-off for government agencies and the like, but will probably never be ideal for more savvy customers.
And I don't know how truly open source their work is but if it's truly open source, they'll most likely find themselves turned into a software company with an open core model. Other vendors that are already at scale can almost certainly assemble hardware better than they can.
> will probably never be ideal for more savvy customers
IDK about every use case, but slightly older generations of CPUs would affect me roughly zero. I'm sure there are things so compute-intensive that one would care very much, but a lot of people probably wouldn't bat an eye about that, and not because they're unsavvy.
To the extent that these things are supported as a whole by the vendor rather than a bunch of finger pointing though, that could be massive, specifically in terms of how many staff members you could "not hire" compared to if you had to employ someone to both build and continually maintain it.
I'm posting this not to invalidate what you're saying, just to say that a little predictable upfront amount of money (the premium) will be spent very happily by lots of people who value predictability and TCO over initial price.
> They will also likely charge a significant premium over decoupled vendors
It seems like they're trying to hit a middle ground between cloud vendors and fully decoupled server equipment companies.
Using Oxide is likely cheaper over the life of the hardware than using a cloud vendor. A company who already has in-house expertise on running racks of systems may be less the target market here than people who want to do cloud computing but under their own control.
> One of the most obvious examples of the problem with this approach is that they're shipping previous generation servers on Day 1. One can easily buy current generation AMD servers from a number of vendors.
> Their coupling approach will most likely leave them perpetually behind
This is a startup that took years to get their initial hardware developed. The time between this version and the version using the next version of AMD chips will be shorter than the time it took to develop this product. This is not an inherent issue with coupling vs decoupling.
Also, most servers are rarely running on the most recent cpus anyway. At least in companies I've worked at with on-site hardware they're usually years (sometimes even a decade) out of date getting the last life sucked out of them before too many internal users start complaining and they get replaced.
If they standardize and open the server shape and plug interface then it gets really cool. Then I could go design a GPU server myself and add it to their rack. The rack is no longer a hyperconverged single-user proprietary setup and becomes something that can be extended and repurposed.
I don't see it as a big deal - rather, I see it as a huge amount of venture cap spent on some very bright people to build something no one really wants, or, at best, is niche.
Also, it has little to do with the cloud; it is yet another hyperconverged infra.
Weirdly, it is attached to something very few people want: Solaris. This relates to the people behind it who still can't figure out why Linux won and Solaris didn't.
When you're deploying VMs, which is the use case here, the substrate OS becomes significantly less important. Those VMs will mostly just be linux.
Yes they are using illumos/Solaris to host this but they don't sell on that, they sell on the functionality of this layer — allowing people to deploy to owned infra in a way that is similar to how they'd deploy to AWS or Azure. How much do you ever think about the system hosting your VM on those clouds? You think about your VMs, the API or web interface to deploy and configure, but not the host OS. With Oxide racks the customers are not maintaining the illumos substrate (as long as Oxide is around).
You could be right about demand, there is risk in a venture like this. But presumably the team thought about this - I think folks who worked at Sun, Oracle, Joyent, and Samsung and made SmartOS probably developed a decent sense of market demand, enough to make a convincing case to their funders.
Back in the day... Sun Micro was a GOAT and pushed the envelope on Unix computing 20-30 years ago. Solaris was stable and high performing.
I don't run on-prem clusters or clouds but know a couple people who do and, at large enough scale, it is a constant "fuck-shit-stack on top of itself" (to quote Reggie Watts). There is almost always something wrong and some people upset about it.
The promise of a fully integrated system (compute HW, network HW, all firmware/drivers written by experts using Rust wherever possible) that pays attention to optimizing all your OpEx metrics is a big deal.
It may take Oxide a couple more years to really break into the market in a big way, but if they can stick it out, they will do very well.
Right, who wants or benefits from open source firmware anyway.
Also there are many situations where renting, for example a flat makes a lot of sense. And there are many situations where the financials and or enabled options of owning something make a lot of sense. Right now, the kind of experience you get with AWS and co. can only be rented, not bought. Some people want to buy houses instead of renting them.
The fact that it's not on linux is one of the great things about it. There is too much linux on critical infrastructure already and the monoculture just keeps on growing.
At least with Oxide there is a glimmer of hope for a better future in this regard.
They sell rack-as-compute.[0] Their minimum order is one rack: You plug in power and network, connect to the built-in management software (API), and start spinning up VMs.
It would be interesting to sell a data center in a container. Cooling, power supply, compute, storage, and network, all in a box. You supply power, a big network pipe, and the piping to external heat exchangers.
Existing vendors will provide rack integration services and deliver a turn key solution like this. Also vendors of virtualization management software have partnerships with hardware suppliers and be happy to deliver fully integrated solutions if you're buying by the rack. The difference is in those cases you have flexibility in the design which seems to be missing here.
Proxmox and a full rack of Supermicro gear would not be as sophisticated, but end result is pretty much the same, with I imagine far far better bang for buck.
I like it, but it doesn't seem like a big deal or revolutionary in any way.
Those of us who've bought large "turn-key" solutions from Dell etc. have often discovered that it's actually just a cobbled-together bunch of things which may or may not work well together on a good day, depending on what you're trying to do. Just because it's all got the word "Dell" written on it, doesn't mean that the components were all engineered by people who were working together to build a single working system.
> Proxmox and a full rack of Supermicro gear would not be as sophisticated, but end result is pretty much the same, with I imagine far far better bang for buck.
I think the question is how well they can do the management plane. Dealing with the "quirks" of a bunch of grey box supermicro stuff is always painful in one way or another. The drop shipped, pre-cabled cab setups are definitely nice but that's only a part of what Oxide is doing here. No cables and their own integrated switching sounds nice too (stuff from the big vendors like UCS is closer to this ballpark but also probably closer to the cost too).
I suspect cooling and rack density could be better in the Oxide solution too, not having to conform to the standards might afford them some possibilities (although that's just a guess, and even if they do improve there these may not be the bottlenecks for many).
> Existing vendors will provide rack integration services and deliver a turn key solution like this.
My experience with the likes of Dell is that they'll deliver it but they won't support it.
Sure, there's a support contract. And they try. But while they sell a box that says Dell, the innards are a hodgepodge of stuff from other places. So when certain firmware doesn't work with something else, they actually can't help because they don't own it, they're just a reseller.
AWS outposts have been there in the market for a long time .. though I am sure there are differences but to say extisting cloud vendors were blind to on prem requirements is a stretch.
Also future datacenter builds are going to be focusing on specific applications which means specific builds. I think Nvidia has a much better chance here with their superpod than Oxide. The target use case is pretty unclear.
On-prem buyers are doing cost reduction and cost reduction targets things like, as one example, the crazy cost of GPU servers on the CSPs. Your run of the mill stuff is very hard to cost reduce.
You can see their sort of lack of getting it by using Tofino2 as their switch. That’s just a very bad choice that was almost certainly chosen for bad reasons.
>They sell servers, but as a finished product. Not as a cobbled together mess of third party stuff where the vendor keeps shrugging if there is an integration >problem. They integrated it.
I’m actually extremely impressed. I want one. I haven’t worked in a data center in years, but I’d be tempted to do it again just to get my hands on one.
I wish they’d sell a tabletop version for hobbyists, but realize this is probably a distraction. But… the problem with a lot of these systems (including the old Sun boxes and things like ibm mainframes and the AS/400) is that they sound cool but there’s no real way for the typical new developer to “get into them” for fun and, as a result, you lose the chance for some developer selling it to their company based on his experience with the things.
Same here. I really want to work on one of these. I got in the industry at the tail end of the time when people used Sun and DEC gear. I got to use just a little bit of it and it seemed so much more "put together" then PC stuff is even now.
Oxide feels like it'll be that "integrated" experience, but with the added benefit of software freedom.
I would assume so. They've said before you can make modifications to the firmware and deploy it yourself if you so wish. That's one of the major reasons that making the firmware open source is so useful.
While working in telecom data centers circa 2016 I've seen many single rack computers from Dell, IBM, HP, Huawei... Not sure that's a new ideia, ex. the open source bits.
You own this. AWS Outpost is leased and you still also pay for the resource usage on top of the outpost unit itself. And this would not be integrated with your AWS account.
This is a turn-key solution, ready to use without eventually dealing with multiple devices with its own firmware and caveats revealing after where put to work together.
The closest to that is that AWS managed rack that works with the web APIS you know already
> Ironically this looks like the realization of Richard Stallman's dream where users can help each other if something doesn't work.
that's only true if you think that "users" means "people who operate cloud computers", which is about as far from understanding what Stallman is talking about as is possible. Someone who makes SaaS and runs it on an Oxide computer is no less of a rentier capitalist than someone who makes SaaS and runs it on AWS.
It's meant for orgs running at a certain scale, but you'd be surprised how early that starts making sense. AWS isn't exactly paying the economy of scale savings on to you.
I am CTO of a large global data center provider posting with throwaway account.
As a technologist, I really appreciate what they have done. Impressive work, high quality, however I don't understand who this is for.
The meaningful market for Data Center hardware is pretty well defined in two clusters. People that build/make custom gear (such as Hyperscalers) and people that buys HP/Cisco/IBM/Dell... (blades or hyper-converged). To scale, you obviously want your DCs as standardized as possible.
Until this company has a certain/size and scale, no one serious will trust their black boxes at any type of scale.
Beyond the tech, how would support services really work? We can have a technician from any of the large vendors on-site in less than 2 hours. In some of our DC clusters we actually have vendor support personnel 24x7 on-site with vendor paid spare parts inventory. How would they provide that level of service?
Maybe I am not the target audience for this offering.
I think they're mostly targeting customers who want an AWS- or GCP-like experience from a developer perspective (compute is abstracted and you can provision it with an API, etc.), but want to own their own compute infrastructure and have it on-prem. That market has mostly had to cobble together consumer-inspired HP/Cisco/whatever stuff historically (like, one of the early talks about the Oxide value proposition was complaining about why every server in the rack needs a CD drive, which was the norm from Dell), because the kinds of stripped-down, super-efficient hardware designs the hyperscalers were building weren't available to the general public, so this is that: hyperscaler-like technology for people who want to own it themselves.
I think the motivations for why people would want to own their own are probably a mix of financial (at a certain scale there's a tipping point and it gets cheaper), and regulatory/compliance/whatever, like if it's healthcare data, or defense, etc.
Thank you for the response. The problem you described has been solved by the large vendors with Hyper-converged offerings for many years so it sounds like Oxide might be a bit late to the party.
I do understand well the rational of running your own servers vs hyperscalers, as well as the repatriation trend but I see Oxide at best as a niche player.
>I think the motivations for why people would want to own their own are probably a mix of financial (at a certain scale there's a tipping point and it gets cheaper), and regulatory/compliance/whatever, like if it's healthcare data, or defense, etc.
Yea, there's definitely a market in defense here. Because even though Azure/AWS offer Govcloud, its inadequate for non-civilian connected infrastructure. This offers benefits of writing "modern software" and deploying it in similar modern fashion while keeping it completely running isolated. Imagine being able to make your command and control operations actually decentralized and not vulnerable to a missile strike on a single datacenter.
Essentially this same sentiment, applies to any number of things:
- Why would anyone buy the Framework laptop, they don't have nearly the support/pedigree that Dell, HP, etc. has?
- Why would anyone use iPhones in the enterprise/IT world, they don't have nearly the support/pedigree that Blackberry, Microsoft, etc. has?
- Why would anyone use Google Fiber, they don't have nearly the network or support that AT&T, Spectrum, etc. has?
- Why would anyone ever use Linux (in enterprise, let's say), compared to the support and adoption that Microsoft/Windows offers?
- ...
I'm purposely picking different examples with varying degrees of success or adoption. I am not claiming that Oxide will be an instant category-dominating success. I don't think Oxide expects to replace HP/Cisco/Dell/etc. overnight, and I don't think a business has to launch with that ambition from the start, to prove that it's worth launching.
But this take is so repetitive as to be bordering on cliche -- I don't know if you're self-aware enough to realize, you are literally just a living embodiment of the "Innovator's Dilemma" right now...
Bryan Cantrill is famously against vendor lock-in. He wrote a[n in]famous blog about the "FYO point" while at Sun. Oxide may be going for customers that also have the same aversion to vendor lock-in.
One thing that Bryan understands is that you can "lock" the customer in with great products and services, as well as continuing development, while also making the customer feel secure in having a way out should you turn into a company that treats locked-in customers as cash cows. The open source strategy (it is a strategy for Bryan and Oxide) is there precisely to do this: make the customer feel they can leave you, but then not.
For your deeply technical staff, having source code access is a big deal too, since it enables them to better understand the products they use.
How big is the market of sufficiently-vendor-lock-in-averse customers? I don't know -- that's not my remit. But there's the size of that market right now, and whether Oxide (and any other companies with similar visions) can grow that market by sheer willpower. I make no predictions.
What if Oxide can get the next Netflix to use their stuff instead of a public cloud?
Oxide is the definition of vendor lock in. All of their hardware is unique... even down to the choice of fans. Fan burns out? Now you've got to buy another one... from them.
One of the amazing shifts in the last 20 years was realizing that commodity hardware, when deployed correctly, could do the job.
> How big is the market of sufficiently-vendor-lock-in-averse customers?
Very. Just look at the USA defense spending budget. If you’ve ever worked on AWS-govcloud or secret, you know there’s a market here.
This has huge use for military too. Imagine having a black site or off-grid location but still needing a rack of things. What if you could spin up an entire enterprise infrastructure by just loading up this rack?
If this team manages to get this thing government certified, there’s a lot of profit to be had.
You may not be aware of the pain that many large, non-software companies currently have on AWS. Gigantic monthly bills (hundreds of thousands per month) coming from subdivisions that aren't capable or motivated to reduce their AWS budget or usage. To the office of the CTO, Oxide's value proposition (buy instead of rent) could be very motivating.
"Hey subdivision A, could we buy a few Oxide racks and move your workload there from AWS? It looks like they would have all the storage and compute you need. Yes? Ok, in 36 months we'll pay your current IT department employees a bonus of 50% of whatever it has saved us vs your current AWS budget."
Having worked somewhere with an AWS spend of $30k/mo on _virtually nothing_, I can attest to this. I think most of it was sales demos that never got cleaned up.
Most people who can do this (aren't as entrenched in AWS) end up moving to a cheap VPS provider so that they don't end up having to pay for all the internetworking, facilities, throw redundancy out the window, and then still have to pay the IT burden to heavy-lift all their workloads to this whole new "Oxide" system.
I guess there must be a largish market for this since AWS introduced Outpost to provide the "cloud" to onprem industries. I feel like this is competing with that market.
Since many of those use cases probably already run extensive on-prem infrastructure this could appeal to them. AWS outpost talks about industries like healthcare, telecom, media and entertainment, manufacturing, or highly regulated spaces like financial services. I've heard of media companies that process through things like IMAX cameras that have just tons of TB's of data sometimes just for 5 minutes worth of footage. That would simply be too cost prohibitive - in bandwidth alone - to try and move around in the cloud and you don't want to have to wait for things like AWS snowball or whatever.
While I think the space is "niche" those niche spaces are not small. Big companies with big budgets.
I think they are a competitor to the 'HP/Cisco/IBM/Dell... (blades or hyper-converged)' part of this. They basically saying 'we will do it better'.
Their marketing and story is supposed to convince you that you could save money running their things rather then Dell. And instead of paying for VMWare you get Open Source Software for most of it.
> Until this company has a certain/size and scale, no one serious will trust their black boxes at any type of scale.
I guess that a risk they are willing to take. Some costumers might wait for a few years until they see Oxide being big enough.
Other costumers might be sick of HP/Dell and might take a Risk on a smaller company.
Since they seem to have some costumers, some organizations are willing to take the risk to get away from Dell and friends.
So I think you are the target audience but you are not willing to risk it until they are larger and less likely to fail and they have a good story in regards to support. I assume they have a support story of some kind, no idea what it is 'Contact Sales' ....
In terms of 'trusting they will continue exists' all they can do is survive for a few years until they are pretty established, then more people will be willing buy their product. And hopefully in that time their existing costumers rave about how amazing the product is.
Lets hope they don't go bust because all potential costumers are just waiting. Then again, you can't anybody for not buying from a startup.
> Their marketing and story is supposed to convince you that you could save money running their things rather then Dell. And instead of paying for VMWare you get Open Source Software for most of it.
As someone who has dealt with mostly Debian and Ubuntu in recent years, every time I had to deal with even small numbers of RHEL licenses I often asked myself "Why do put up with this?" (I know why, but still… such overhead.)
The current state of the art is a fucking train wreck. Choose any layer of abstraction and start picking at it and you’ll find mostly gaffer tape. Scaling up sucks. Rewriting old monoliths to micro services wasn’t a panacea except maybe for cloud vendor profits. You said the hardware market is well defined, which is another way of saying ossified. Particularly when you start comparing it to the expected pace of software. How’s Open19 going? How much liquid cooling do you have in customer racks?
In my opinion this is ultimately a software offering that happens to come on vertically integrated hardware. It offers a complete, highly polished API to a minuscule-scale
DC. If they can find market fit and make a little bit of money, the next step is to start making deep improvements to things behind the abstraction. From where you sit, you are well aware that you could make huge improvements inside the DC demarc if you could do it without disrupting customers. But you’re probably limited by the terrible, terrible APIs you would be forced to use, that don’t offer the capabilities you need, from vendors who would be happy to chat but would provide timeframes in the 6-18
month range for even a modest improvement.
So this, IMO, is about defining that interface to a DC on a single hardware platform with vertical integration, and then scaling up from there. The current hyperscalers will adopt the suite of APIs and capabilities directly, make lower quality copies, or die.
Of course all assuming they’re successful enough to get the revenue machine going in the first place which seems likely to me, given the absolute dogshit state of the cloud world today, the trend towards multi cloud, and the business case for moving certain loads back on prem or to a bare metal colo++ offering.
> you obviously want your DCs as standardized as possible. Until this company has a certain/size and scale, no one serious will trust their black boxes at any type of scale.
This gets to the crux of my first thoughts when I read the marketing copy: can they deliver (reliability).
They do admit very clearly that what they're doing is hard and that at many points during development they were reluctant to be too ambitious (for obvious reasons), but at each stage they did just that: proceeded with the most ambitious option. That takes a huge amount of self belief that might be warranted or might be hubris. As you point out, untimely the success of Oxide won't only hinge on ability to deliver on that self belief, but more on their ability to convince prospective customers that they have competency to do what noone else can.
I fully support every part of their approach in theory but my wizened traveled self thinks it smells a little too good to be true.
Maybe you are not. This offering definitely sounds like something for on prem and not a large data center. Basically, if your core competence is hosting stuff you don't need the extra value they provide. But if your core competence is basically anything else and just need more than a single server under the IT guys' desk then this begins to look very exciting.
You might be right but if a customer won't have the size/scale, it won't value the unique proposition from Oxide. I hope I am wrong because it would be great to see a new player with a fresh perspective in the hardware market.
If you could drop ship a rack of gear to the Colo before, with the puny compute and bandwidth potential in that number of Rack Units, didn’t it just become massively more appealing?
To be completely honest, this is for the idealists out there. Those of us who are itching to replace our vSphere with oVirt because 1) we have the time and skill to do it, 2) we believe in open source and 3) we believe we can make huge savings by using open source.
I expect the oxide supporters to have a hard few years ahead of them of finding bugs in high throughput environments. But at the end of the day it will be worth it just to have another competitor in a pretty boring playing field.
They literally had CTOs of F100 companies that want to buy this gear as part of VCs pitch. Because as you can imagine your question was the first question VC's asked.
Purchasing a ton of hardware from a startup seems extremely risky for a F100. It's one thing to be left holding the bag when a SaaS startup goes under, but when you just spent millions on gear that is now completely unsupported... eek.
I'd be curious to see what companies are interested, Oxide doesn't have any logos on their website which is a little odd given the space.
Maybe something like Dell VXBlock didn't exist when they pitched their idea?
Any hardware contracts are very long term and you'll have a hard time getting me to switch to a different vendor, especially when they also want to come in with an unknown operating system which I have to run.
> Beyond the tech, how would support services really work? We can have a technician from any of the large vendors on-site in less than 2 hours. In some of our DC clusters we actually have vendor support personnel 24x7 on-site with vendor paid spare parts inventory. How would they provide that level of service?
Forgive me for being naive, but that sounds like a great way to differentiate their offering.
E.g. the famous Maytag Repairman, who sits at his desk doing nothing because Maytag washers are so reliable that he has nothing to do.
> In a time in which the laundry appliances of major manufacturers had reached maturity, differing mostly in minor details, the campaign was designed to remind consumers of the perceived added value in Maytag products derived from the brand's reputation for dependability.
I can't think of a lot of examples right now but I can already imagine one type of customers for such a product - universities wanting high performance computing. At my alma mater, the HPC cluster/server was in a different slightly distant location. Using something like AWS wouldn't be liked by almost any uni admin, and running a server on premises isn't a great idea in a place that gets the occasional (but rare) power or internet cut. Outsourcing some of these responsibilities may have been nice for our admin.
Every single one of the companies you listed started off with unverified hardware, some that failed in the field and continues to today. Why wouldn't you try something else, considering the status quo? This is a nothing-to-lose situation as long as you don't put all your chips into the bet. Every single datacenter has capacity and a need to diversify. It's not even a heroic feat of risk taking.
Having worked in a variety of related fields, my take on this is that hypervisors like VMware have largely eliminated the need for proprietary hardware with “support” contracts. Just buy 3x the capacity in white boxes and turn off anything that breaks.
The problem is that the industry hasn’t noticed this yet. The hyperscalers have, and are printing money as a consequence.
I might not be some brilliant CTO, but this product obviously seems to fit _very well_ between two very large product offerings: fully cloud being one and fully on-prem being the other. I’ve often thought it would be cool if you could _buy_ a physical space in a server farm, like literally an area of square feet where the racks are all serviced and provided, but meets all of the needs a company who doesn’t want fully cloud has. This is actually way more clever than that.
A lot of people didn’t understand the need for the iPad mini or Mac mini or myriad other products without an obviously existing market. I think this is extremely keen of Oxide to fine the borders between these offerings and fit very snugly between them.
My guess, someone who buys hyper-converged infrastructure today (e.g. Nutanix, VCE, etc) ... but that market is getting smaller and smaller by the day.
It’s an acquihire play. It might be possible to beat the hypers with $100 billion and some really good engineers. But building custom racks ain’t the angle to do it.
I really wonder what their mental image of a product market fit is. They're undeniably doing some cool stuff but myself and it seems like everybody else has to do some serious mental gymnastics to figure out who they sell this to and what needs it fulfills or niches it can fit into.
I have been following oxide for a bit, and really don't have to add to the tech conversation, but do want to say:
Congrats to the team on reaching this big milestone and (in my eyes at least) just as much congratulations on doing it in a way that has been unique and sticking to values that seems to drive a strong positive culture (at least from the outside looking in).
Shipping products is hard, and only getting harder. IMHO, one of the big drivers of that is just how complex every market has became. Building and selling software alone is so much more multi-disciplinary than it was 10 years ago and adding hardware to the mix is upping that by a huge factor. As I look around, I see so many companies struggle to build teams that can handle the huge range of required tasks. To see a company like Oxide that (once again, from the outside a least) seems to have things together on so many fronts, especially while doing it while sticking strongly to some core values, is pretty inspiring.
Not to get overly cynical, but I don't think it is an extreme opinion to say that current start-up culture feels like you have to make big compromises in what you believe in order to be successful. Whether that be open-source, how you value and pay employees, or even just rushing things to deliver that aren't ready.
While I acknowledge Oxide has some well-connected, experienced founders that I am certain enabled them to get the resources and trust to do things their way, I really hope they kill it so that other founders and builders can learn that you still can build not just financially successful products, but great organizations that truly care about their values.
Thank you very much for the kind words! It has been important for us to do things the right way and to be a model for others -- so it's really meaningful for us to hear that that's appreciated; thank you!
Yeah, I don't honestly know much about the hardware side of things, nor the business/economic rationale for why one would prefer an Oxide rack over a more conventional setup, but reading through their posts, what they've done is just singularly so impressive that I really, really, really want them to succeed.
I've worked in startups most of my life, but it's tough feeling like you've got to take a bunch of shortcuts ("MVP"-it before you run out of runway, etc. etc.), so to see a startup just put a ton of real engineering prowess into a great product is a sight to behold.
Also, while there are obviously amazing products out there in the world, it's so often a "race to the bottom" that it feels like decently made products are just prohibitively expensive. I'm really into antique espresso machines, and there is a reason that seeing rebuilds of beautiful old lever espresso machines get so many oohs and ahhs online - they truly don't make them like they used to, so it's so cool to see these beasts brought back to life. For some reason I have a similar feeling looking at these Oxide racks - they just didn't cut corners to build an awesome machine. Again, not qualified to say whether that makes economic sense long term, but it's still a thing of beauty regardless.
I've been following Oxide since they formed and I really hope they crush it.
Semi-sort-of related... there was an automation company, Bedrock automation, that went defunct about a year ago. Their PLC hardware ideas were dope but I always felt like they were missing the boat a little bit by supporting stale PLC programming languages. I used to wonder if supporting Rust and Ada on these PLC's would be been a good idea to diversify/specialize into complex control system domains. Also, iirc, Bedrock didn't support EtherCAT which I felt was a mistake.
Anyhow... one of these days it would be cool for a forward thinking company like Oxide to tackle what a modern complex, distributed control system hardware/software stack should look like using Rust/Hubris.
The industrial automation industry is highly risk adverse. In some systems, like safety, this mentality is justified without proper migration plans. In other areas, it's alarming, like choosing to run a system on hardware that has been out of support for 30+ years without adequate spare parts.
Operation/Shop floor technologies (OT) are treated like mechanical equipment, "When it fails, we'll swap it out for a new one." Well, this isn't a motor, it has programming, and it interfaces with I/O sensors and devices.
The main challenge is the lack of knowledge and skills in modern technologies among technical staff and decision makers in industrial organizations.
A an aside, in my early days I hopped on a 5-hour flight and drove 6 hours to replace a failed hard drive in a Windows NT machine used as an HMI. Then a year later, replaced it and all the other clients with a vSphere stack. The local resources, both internal and external, were too intimidated to touch it.
I'd be in favor of a "reset" in automation, it feels like fighting city hall.
What is the real solution for highly complex technology like IT, as end times are coming?
It's a critical issue. Resources are wasted, and soon we won't be able to waste as much as we did, as the abundance era is coming to an end. The desire and need for higher efficiency through highly complex technology is only to increase, as the population gets older and older.
I can easily see mandatory IT training (like the current mandatory army training in some countries) and states standardizing certain technologies to avoid fragmentation and thus freezing progress, for good reasons. Like forbidding any database to be used in production except 3 most complete ones or banning all web frameworks except React and Svelte (arbitrary). It's not that they won't want progress, but they won't be able to afford progress and the resulting skill fragmentation in the IT workers while people are hungry and money is ever tighter.
I agree with everything you said... but there are a lot of areas in control system engineering that would benefit from having really robust hardware designs coupled with guaranteed correctness that Rust/Ada provide, and then all of the upside of all of the advanced control programming that is relatively easy in a modern programming language.
Beckhoff & B&R Automation are part of the way there. They both have some really slick portfolios. IMO, on paper, these are the two most advanced control system companies (with large sales volume).
I feel like a lot of people miss the point on PLC stuff.
“Stale PLC programming languages” might be stale and in need of a rework, but “rewrite in rust” entirely missed the value proposition. Memory safety is important, sure, but these systems aren’t usually ever allocating memory or taking actions that aren’t deterministic. PLCs usually operate in strict realtime environments. Like each operation contains a known number of clock cycles, and is timed to match physical “stuff” moving in the real world. To rewrite in rust, you’d need a flavor of rust where you can deterministically know the timing of ops and calibrate the timing of each branch of any control paths.
That said, there is a market for softer realtime PLCs and companies like Rockwell sell Windows IoT hardware- but they still contain a strict-realtime companion controller. Arduino is now selling a mountable PLC that can be programmed using their tools, but even they support traditional PLC programming languages.
Yep... I programmed PLC's for periods of my career. I could write about this until my fingers fall off, but in short:
Rust and C code can also operate in strict real-time embedded environments provided some basic rules are followed like "no dynamic memory allocation". This done all the time.
If one follows hard real-time coding standards like Misra C or "JPL real-time C" (and these standards can also be applied to Rust, Zig, Ada, etc.) the code will run deterministically on a given target... just like PLC code running is not necessarily any more deterministic than C code (no dynamic allocation) running on an embedded processor. In fact, many PLC's today run a "PLC code execution" engine on top of a real-time operating system like QNX (which I think is mostly C code). Even in some older PLC's, it is still C firmware that's interpreting and running the PLC code.
PLC programming "languages" (ladder logic, FBD, CFC) were designed for their programming audience, who are not software engineers. It is difficult to represent complex logic and numerical code in these languages and that limits the sophistication of algorithms that can be implemented on these systems. For instance: try writing a model predictive control routine in ladder logic; I think it could be done but I'd lose my remaining hair doing it.
PLC Structured Text is very similar to Pascal and pretty capable, but folks generally don't write model predictive control algorithms in Structured Text either.
It is hard to orchestrate multiple PLC to run as a cohesive, deterministic unit. The interfaces between PLC often need to be kept simple and sometime this communication is less real-time. Things are a lot more advanced in cluster computing.
The limitations of current PLC architectures is already a pain point for complex control system, like large robotic manufacturing lines or optimal control of HVAC in large buildings)... and it's going to get worse as performance demands increase. Again, as mentioned above, I think Beckhoff and B&R are further along the evolutionary path than others in the industry.
I really wish oxide had a Homelab/consumer centric offering!
Spec wise, some low power systems like an Intel NUC, LattePanda Sigma, or Zimaboard. You could fit 3/4 of them in a single 1u with a shared power supply. They could even offer a full 1u with desktop grade chips on the same sleds.
I have thought about building one myself, but it's a large investment of time that I can't seem to find lately.
It would be great if Oxide had something like Canonical's "Orange Box"/cloud-in-a-box for homelabs, evaluation, training (in the management bits) - and hobby work loads!
I'd imagine they'll get to that eventually, these types of companies generally start at enterprise level because that's the most profitable and requires closing smaller numbers of deals. Once the product is proven and their support infrastructure is in place they can go for other market segments to try and maximize revenue
It's not just about maximizing revenue, it's also about getting it into developer hands early (homelabs, side projects, college students, etc) so they can become familiar with it, and become an advocate for it within their company. Cloudflare is a good example of this.
Even just a medium business offering would be great. I'd love to not have to use Dell or HP gear-- anything to get away from the cobbled-together stack of legacy IBM PC compatibility and third-party ODM/OEM stuff glue-and-taped together by the vendor.
Unfortunately they are not planning home lab things anytime soon, per a recent podcast episode [0].
If you want to play around with their Hubris OS: "You wanna buy an STM32H753 eval board. You can download Hubris, and then you’ve got – you’ve got an Oxide computer. You have it for 20 bucks.”
Not 1U but perhaps a box design that isn’t noisy like a pizza box server.
Don’t know if oxide would want or be able to compete in the low cost market but a bigger a more expensive desktop/workstation as a mini homelab cloud could be a great option to get people trained on the oxide platform.
"Everyone at Oxide makes $201,227 USD, regardless of location."[1]
Do they actually assemble and build their own racks of hardware, or is that outsourced? Somewhere, there must be an assembly plant. If this stuff actually exists. It's hard to even find pictures of their products. Do they have production installations?
Certainly odd but not out of the ordinary for a small Bay Area start-up where the Founders have a ton of cash and the focus is mostly on what they personally want to do. Posts like these are b/c the Founders want to hire 1-3 people who fit exactly into alignment with them.
If you don’t listen to their “On the Metal” podcast, you’re missing out. So many great stories from legends in the industry. Just start with the first episode.
And they currently run a podcast weekly called "Oxide and Friends" where they talk about miscellaneous things in the software space.
The most recent few episodes have been about corporate open source and they've had excellent guests, like Kelsey Hightower. Definitely the best computer related podcasts out there. Bryan and Adam are great hosts and their humor is always a delight.
Other podcasts I'd recommend: ADSP [1] (if you're into programming), 2.5 admins [2] (if you're into computers). But I have no recommendations about hardware design because AFAIK the podcasts you mention and what Oxide is doing are pretty unique.
In a similar vein, Embedded.fm is a great podcast for embedded SW. Though I bet Oxide's take on embedded rust is a lot different than the hosts of that show!
What am I missing here? Hasn't SoftIron been building this exact thing for around 5 years? Heck, they design and manufacture all of the hardware as well.
Thanks for pointing this out! I wasn't aware of SoftIron. I think its a big deal that there are two vendors on this path. And both seem to be doing it the right way. I think it makes the whole, stronger than the sum.
Readit News
They sell servers, but as a finished product. Not as a cobbled together mess of third party stuff where the vendor keeps shrugging if there is an integration problem. They integrated it. It comes with all the features they expect you to want if you wanted to build your own cloud.
Also, they wrote the software. And it's all open source. So no "sorry but the third party vendor dropped support for the bios". You get the source code. Even if Oxide goes bust, you can still salvage things in a pinch.
Ironically this looks like the realization of Richard Stallman's dream where users can help each other if something doesn't work.
One of the more interesting discussions I had during my tenure at Google was about the "size" of the unit of clusters. If you toured Google you got the whole "millions of cheap replaceable computers" mantra. Sitting in Building 42 was a "rack" which had cheap PC motherboards on "pizza dishes" without all that superfluous sheet metal. Bunches of these in a rack and a festoon of network cables. What are the "first class" elements of these machines? Compute? Networking? Storage? Did you replace components? Or a whole "pizza slice" (which Google called an 'index' at the time). Really a great systems analysis problem.
FWIW I'm more of a "chunk" guy (which is the direction 0xide went) and less of a "cluster" guy (which is the way Google organized their infrastructure). A lot of people associated with 0xide are folks I worked with at Sun in the early days and during that period the first hints of "beowulf" clusters vs "super computers", was memory one thing (UMA) or did it vary from place to place (NUMA). I have a paper I wrote from that time about "compute viscosity" where the effective compute rate (which at the time largely focused on transactional databases) scaled up with resource (more memory more transactions/sec for example) and scaled down with viscosity (higher latencies to get to state meant fewer transactions/sec) Sun was invested heavily in the TPC-C benchmarks at the time but they were just one load pattern one could optimize for.
These guys have capitalized on all that history and it is fucking amazing! I just hope they don't get killed by acquisition[1].
[1] KbA is a technique where people who are invested in the status quo and have resources available use those resources to force the investors in a disruptive technology to sell to them and then they quietly bury the disruptive technology.
Private equity in the US has collectively determined that no company shall exist outside of investment ownership. I don't know what the ownership structure looks like, but generally speaking, it seems that nearly everyone has a "fuck you" number. Now that Oxide is venturing into Dell and HP's turf, I worry someone will get a fix on what Brian's number is.
One of the most obvious examples of the problem with this approach is that they're shipping previous generation servers on Day 1. One can easily buy current generation AMD servers from a number of vendors.
They will also likely charge a significant premium over decoupled vendors that are forced to compete head-to-head for a specific role (server vendor, switch vendor, etc).
Their coupling approach will most likely leave them perpetually behind and more expensive.
But there are advantages too. Their stuff should be simpler to use and require less in-house expertise to operate well.
This is probably a reasonable trade-off for government agencies and the like, but will probably never be ideal for more savvy customers.
And I don't know how truly open source their work is but if it's truly open source, they'll most likely find themselves turned into a software company with an open core model. Other vendors that are already at scale can almost certainly assemble hardware better than they can.
IDK about every use case, but slightly older generations of CPUs would affect me roughly zero. I'm sure there are things so compute-intensive that one would care very much, but a lot of people probably wouldn't bat an eye about that, and not because they're unsavvy.
To the extent that these things are supported as a whole by the vendor rather than a bunch of finger pointing though, that could be massive, specifically in terms of how many staff members you could "not hire" compared to if you had to employ someone to both build and continually maintain it.
I'm posting this not to invalidate what you're saying, just to say that a little predictable upfront amount of money (the premium) will be spent very happily by lots of people who value predictability and TCO over initial price.
It seems like they're trying to hit a middle ground between cloud vendors and fully decoupled server equipment companies.
Using Oxide is likely cheaper over the life of the hardware than using a cloud vendor. A company who already has in-house expertise on running racks of systems may be less the target market here than people who want to do cloud computing but under their own control.
> Their coupling approach will most likely leave them perpetually behind
This is a startup that took years to get their initial hardware developed. The time between this version and the version using the next version of AMD chips will be shorter than the time it took to develop this product. This is not an inherent issue with coupling vs decoupling.
Also, most servers are rarely running on the most recent cpus anyway. At least in companies I've worked at with on-site hardware they're usually years (sometimes even a decade) out of date getting the last life sucked out of them before too many internal users start complaining and they get replaced.
Also, it has little to do with the cloud; it is yet another hyperconverged infra.
Weirdly, it is attached to something very few people want: Solaris. This relates to the people behind it who still can't figure out why Linux won and Solaris didn't.
Yes they are using illumos/Solaris to host this but they don't sell on that, they sell on the functionality of this layer — allowing people to deploy to owned infra in a way that is similar to how they'd deploy to AWS or Azure. How much do you ever think about the system hosting your VM on those clouds? You think about your VMs, the API or web interface to deploy and configure, but not the host OS. With Oxide racks the customers are not maintaining the illumos substrate (as long as Oxide is around).
You could be right about demand, there is risk in a venture like this. But presumably the team thought about this - I think folks who worked at Sun, Oracle, Joyent, and Samsung and made SmartOS probably developed a decent sense of market demand, enough to make a convincing case to their funders.
I don't run on-prem clusters or clouds but know a couple people who do and, at large enough scale, it is a constant "fuck-shit-stack on top of itself" (to quote Reggie Watts). There is almost always something wrong and some people upset about it.
The promise of a fully integrated system (compute HW, network HW, all firmware/drivers written by experts using Rust wherever possible) that pays attention to optimizing all your OpEx metrics is a big deal.
It may take Oxide a couple more years to really break into the market in a big way, but if they can stick it out, they will do very well.
Also there are many situations where renting, for example a flat makes a lot of sense. And there are many situations where the financials and or enabled options of owning something make a lot of sense. Right now, the kind of experience you get with AWS and co. can only be rented, not bought. Some people want to buy houses instead of renting them.
At least with Oxide there is a glimmer of hope for a better future in this regard.
Could be! Seems too early to tell though, and remains to be seen whether it pencils. Which is the whole idea of starting a new venture, no?
They sell rack-as-compute.[0] Their minimum order is one rack: You plug in power and network, connect to the built-in management software (API), and start spinning up VMs.
[0] With built-in networking and storage.
Dead Comment
Proxmox and a full rack of Supermicro gear would not be as sophisticated, but end result is pretty much the same, with I imagine far far better bang for buck.
I like it, but it doesn't seem like a big deal or revolutionary in any way.
When it breaks, good luck!
I think the question is how well they can do the management plane. Dealing with the "quirks" of a bunch of grey box supermicro stuff is always painful in one way or another. The drop shipped, pre-cabled cab setups are definitely nice but that's only a part of what Oxide is doing here. No cables and their own integrated switching sounds nice too (stuff from the big vendors like UCS is closer to this ballpark but also probably closer to the cost too).
I suspect cooling and rack density could be better in the Oxide solution too, not having to conform to the standards might afford them some possibilities (although that's just a guess, and even if they do improve there these may not be the bottlenecks for many).
My experience with the likes of Dell is that they'll deliver it but they won't support it.
Sure, there's a support contract. And they try. But while they sell a box that says Dell, the innards are a hodgepodge of stuff from other places. So when certain firmware doesn't work with something else, they actually can't help because they don't own it, they're just a reseller.
On-prem buyers are doing cost reduction and cost reduction targets things like, as one example, the crazy cost of GPU servers on the CSPs. Your run of the mill stuff is very hard to cost reduce.
You can see their sort of lack of getting it by using Tofino2 as their switch. That’s just a very bad choice that was almost certainly chosen for bad reasons.
>They sell servers, but as a finished product. Not as a cobbled together mess of third party stuff where the vendor keeps shrugging if there is an integration >problem. They integrated it.
I’m actually extremely impressed. I want one. I haven’t worked in a data center in years, but I’d be tempted to do it again just to get my hands on one.
Oxide feels like it'll be that "integrated" experience, but with the added benefit of software freedom.
Is this true? Can you set your own root of trust for the firmware signing key and build and deploy it yourself?
How is it ironic?
I do wonder if AWS will eventually go down market if oxide gets any scale.
It seems like AWS has all the pieces to compete with Oxide if they care to.
that's only true if you think that "users" means "people who operate cloud computers", which is about as far from understanding what Stallman is talking about as is possible. Someone who makes SaaS and runs it on an Oxide computer is no less of a rentier capitalist than someone who makes SaaS and runs it on AWS.
Prices are here: https://oxide.computer/sales ;)
DC build out cost and effort
Power cooling requirements
Dark fiber bandwidth requirement
New headcount to support all this
No thanks , I have widgets to make and sell and a business to run.
As a technologist, I really appreciate what they have done. Impressive work, high quality, however I don't understand who this is for.
The meaningful market for Data Center hardware is pretty well defined in two clusters. People that build/make custom gear (such as Hyperscalers) and people that buys HP/Cisco/IBM/Dell... (blades or hyper-converged). To scale, you obviously want your DCs as standardized as possible.
Until this company has a certain/size and scale, no one serious will trust their black boxes at any type of scale.
Beyond the tech, how would support services really work? We can have a technician from any of the large vendors on-site in less than 2 hours. In some of our DC clusters we actually have vendor support personnel 24x7 on-site with vendor paid spare parts inventory. How would they provide that level of service?
Maybe I am not the target audience for this offering.
I think the motivations for why people would want to own their own are probably a mix of financial (at a certain scale there's a tipping point and it gets cheaper), and regulatory/compliance/whatever, like if it's healthcare data, or defense, etc.
I do understand well the rational of running your own servers vs hyperscalers, as well as the repatriation trend but I see Oxide at best as a niche player.
Yea, there's definitely a market in defense here. Because even though Azure/AWS offer Govcloud, its inadequate for non-civilian connected infrastructure. This offers benefits of writing "modern software" and deploying it in similar modern fashion while keeping it completely running isolated. Imagine being able to make your command and control operations actually decentralized and not vulnerable to a missile strike on a single datacenter.
- Why would anyone buy the Framework laptop, they don't have nearly the support/pedigree that Dell, HP, etc. has?
- Why would anyone use iPhones in the enterprise/IT world, they don't have nearly the support/pedigree that Blackberry, Microsoft, etc. has?
- Why would anyone use Google Fiber, they don't have nearly the network or support that AT&T, Spectrum, etc. has?
- Why would anyone ever use Linux (in enterprise, let's say), compared to the support and adoption that Microsoft/Windows offers?
- ...
I'm purposely picking different examples with varying degrees of success or adoption. I am not claiming that Oxide will be an instant category-dominating success. I don't think Oxide expects to replace HP/Cisco/Dell/etc. overnight, and I don't think a business has to launch with that ambition from the start, to prove that it's worth launching.
But this take is so repetitive as to be bordering on cliche -- I don't know if you're self-aware enough to realize, you are literally just a living embodiment of the "Innovator's Dilemma" right now...
Framework is niche.
iPhones do have the pedigree.
Google Fiber is barely used.
Most folks do use a supported Linux distribution, they don’t roll their own.
One thing that Bryan understands is that you can "lock" the customer in with great products and services, as well as continuing development, while also making the customer feel secure in having a way out should you turn into a company that treats locked-in customers as cash cows. The open source strategy (it is a strategy for Bryan and Oxide) is there precisely to do this: make the customer feel they can leave you, but then not.
For your deeply technical staff, having source code access is a big deal too, since it enables them to better understand the products they use.
How big is the market of sufficiently-vendor-lock-in-averse customers? I don't know -- that's not my remit. But there's the size of that market right now, and whether Oxide (and any other companies with similar visions) can grow that market by sheer willpower. I make no predictions.
What if Oxide can get the next Netflix to use their stuff instead of a public cloud?
One of the amazing shifts in the last 20 years was realizing that commodity hardware, when deployed correctly, could do the job.
Very. Just look at the USA defense spending budget. If you’ve ever worked on AWS-govcloud or secret, you know there’s a market here.
This has huge use for military too. Imagine having a black site or off-grid location but still needing a rack of things. What if you could spin up an entire enterprise infrastructure by just loading up this rack?
If this team manages to get this thing government certified, there’s a lot of profit to be had.
https://web.archive.org/web/20080705140230/http://blogs.sun....
And "FYO" stands for Fuck You Oracle.
"Hey subdivision A, could we buy a few Oxide racks and move your workload there from AWS? It looks like they would have all the storage and compute you need. Yes? Ok, in 36 months we'll pay your current IT department employees a bonus of 50% of whatever it has saved us vs your current AWS budget."
Or in other words, is migrating to Oxide somehow assumed to be easier than migrating to some other non-locked-in cloud infrastructure?
How many times has computing hardware changed in response to the economics of the parts and the economics of the businesses buying hardware?
There are downsides to new models, but money solves a lot of problems
So I don’t know about Oxide in particular, but it seems short sighted to bet on stagnation
Also Oxide is doing what Google did 20 years ago, and Facebook open sourced ~10 years ago, so it’s not exactly unproven
Since many of those use cases probably already run extensive on-prem infrastructure this could appeal to them. AWS outpost talks about industries like healthcare, telecom, media and entertainment, manufacturing, or highly regulated spaces like financial services. I've heard of media companies that process through things like IMAX cameras that have just tons of TB's of data sometimes just for 5 minutes worth of footage. That would simply be too cost prohibitive - in bandwidth alone - to try and move around in the cloud and you don't want to have to wait for things like AWS snowball or whatever.
While I think the space is "niche" those niche spaces are not small. Big companies with big budgets.
Their marketing and story is supposed to convince you that you could save money running their things rather then Dell. And instead of paying for VMWare you get Open Source Software for most of it.
> Until this company has a certain/size and scale, no one serious will trust their black boxes at any type of scale.
I guess that a risk they are willing to take. Some costumers might wait for a few years until they see Oxide being big enough.
Other costumers might be sick of HP/Dell and might take a Risk on a smaller company.
Since they seem to have some costumers, some organizations are willing to take the risk to get away from Dell and friends.
So I think you are the target audience but you are not willing to risk it until they are larger and less likely to fail and they have a good story in regards to support. I assume they have a support story of some kind, no idea what it is 'Contact Sales' ....
In terms of 'trusting they will continue exists' all they can do is survive for a few years until they are pretty established, then more people will be willing buy their product. And hopefully in that time their existing costumers rave about how amazing the product is.
Lets hope they don't go bust because all potential costumers are just waiting. Then again, you can't anybody for not buying from a startup.
As someone who has dealt with mostly Debian and Ubuntu in recent years, every time I had to deal with even small numbers of RHEL licenses I often asked myself "Why do put up with this?" (I know why, but still… such overhead.)
Unrelated, but a "costumer" makes costumes. I think you were looking for "customer".
The current state of the art is a fucking train wreck. Choose any layer of abstraction and start picking at it and you’ll find mostly gaffer tape. Scaling up sucks. Rewriting old monoliths to micro services wasn’t a panacea except maybe for cloud vendor profits. You said the hardware market is well defined, which is another way of saying ossified. Particularly when you start comparing it to the expected pace of software. How’s Open19 going? How much liquid cooling do you have in customer racks?
In my opinion this is ultimately a software offering that happens to come on vertically integrated hardware. It offers a complete, highly polished API to a minuscule-scale DC. If they can find market fit and make a little bit of money, the next step is to start making deep improvements to things behind the abstraction. From where you sit, you are well aware that you could make huge improvements inside the DC demarc if you could do it without disrupting customers. But you’re probably limited by the terrible, terrible APIs you would be forced to use, that don’t offer the capabilities you need, from vendors who would be happy to chat but would provide timeframes in the 6-18 month range for even a modest improvement.
So this, IMO, is about defining that interface to a DC on a single hardware platform with vertical integration, and then scaling up from there. The current hyperscalers will adopt the suite of APIs and capabilities directly, make lower quality copies, or die.
Of course all assuming they’re successful enough to get the revenue machine going in the first place which seems likely to me, given the absolute dogshit state of the cloud world today, the trend towards multi cloud, and the business case for moving certain loads back on prem or to a bare metal colo++ offering.
This gets to the crux of my first thoughts when I read the marketing copy: can they deliver (reliability).
They do admit very clearly that what they're doing is hard and that at many points during development they were reluctant to be too ambitious (for obvious reasons), but at each stage they did just that: proceeded with the most ambitious option. That takes a huge amount of self belief that might be warranted or might be hubris. As you point out, untimely the success of Oxide won't only hinge on ability to deliver on that self belief, but more on their ability to convince prospective customers that they have competency to do what noone else can.
I fully support every part of their approach in theory but my wizened traveled self thinks it smells a little too good to be true.
I expect the oxide supporters to have a hard few years ahead of them of finding bugs in high throughput environments. But at the end of the day it will be worth it just to have another competitor in a pretty boring playing field.
I'd be curious to see what companies are interested, Oxide doesn't have any logos on their website which is a little odd given the space.
Any hardware contracts are very long term and you'll have a hard time getting me to switch to a different vendor, especially when they also want to come in with an unknown operating system which I have to run.
Forgive me for being naive, but that sounds like a great way to differentiate their offering.
E.g. the famous Maytag Repairman, who sits at his desk doing nothing because Maytag washers are so reliable that he has nothing to do.
> In a time in which the laundry appliances of major manufacturers had reached maturity, differing mostly in minor details, the campaign was designed to remind consumers of the perceived added value in Maytag products derived from the brand's reputation for dependability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maytag_Repairman#Ol'_Lonely
I can't think of a lot of examples right now but I can already imagine one type of customers for such a product - universities wanting high performance computing. At my alma mater, the HPC cluster/server was in a different slightly distant location. Using something like AWS wouldn't be liked by almost any uni admin, and running a server on premises isn't a great idea in a place that gets the occasional (but rare) power or internet cut. Outsourcing some of these responsibilities may have been nice for our admin.
The problem is that the industry hasn’t noticed this yet. The hyperscalers have, and are printing money as a consequence.
A lot of people didn’t understand the need for the iPad mini or Mac mini or myriad other products without an obviously existing market. I think this is extremely keen of Oxide to fine the borders between these offerings and fit very snugly between them.
Deleted Comment
My guess, someone who buys hyper-converged infrastructure today (e.g. Nutanix, VCE, etc) ... but that market is getting smaller and smaller by the day.
Congrats to the team on reaching this big milestone and (in my eyes at least) just as much congratulations on doing it in a way that has been unique and sticking to values that seems to drive a strong positive culture (at least from the outside looking in).
Shipping products is hard, and only getting harder. IMHO, one of the big drivers of that is just how complex every market has became. Building and selling software alone is so much more multi-disciplinary than it was 10 years ago and adding hardware to the mix is upping that by a huge factor. As I look around, I see so many companies struggle to build teams that can handle the huge range of required tasks. To see a company like Oxide that (once again, from the outside a least) seems to have things together on so many fronts, especially while doing it while sticking strongly to some core values, is pretty inspiring.
Not to get overly cynical, but I don't think it is an extreme opinion to say that current start-up culture feels like you have to make big compromises in what you believe in order to be successful. Whether that be open-source, how you value and pay employees, or even just rushing things to deliver that aren't ready.
While I acknowledge Oxide has some well-connected, experienced founders that I am certain enabled them to get the resources and trust to do things their way, I really hope they kill it so that other founders and builders can learn that you still can build not just financially successful products, but great organizations that truly care about their values.
I've worked in startups most of my life, but it's tough feeling like you've got to take a bunch of shortcuts ("MVP"-it before you run out of runway, etc. etc.), so to see a startup just put a ton of real engineering prowess into a great product is a sight to behold.
Also, while there are obviously amazing products out there in the world, it's so often a "race to the bottom" that it feels like decently made products are just prohibitively expensive. I'm really into antique espresso machines, and there is a reason that seeing rebuilds of beautiful old lever espresso machines get so many oohs and ahhs online - they truly don't make them like they used to, so it's so cool to see these beasts brought back to life. For some reason I have a similar feeling looking at these Oxide racks - they just didn't cut corners to build an awesome machine. Again, not qualified to say whether that makes economic sense long term, but it's still a thing of beauty regardless.
And shipping full cabs is harder!
Semi-sort-of related... there was an automation company, Bedrock automation, that went defunct about a year ago. Their PLC hardware ideas were dope but I always felt like they were missing the boat a little bit by supporting stale PLC programming languages. I used to wonder if supporting Rust and Ada on these PLC's would be been a good idea to diversify/specialize into complex control system domains. Also, iirc, Bedrock didn't support EtherCAT which I felt was a mistake.
Anyhow... one of these days it would be cool for a forward thinking company like Oxide to tackle what a modern complex, distributed control system hardware/software stack should look like using Rust/Hubris.
Operation/Shop floor technologies (OT) are treated like mechanical equipment, "When it fails, we'll swap it out for a new one." Well, this isn't a motor, it has programming, and it interfaces with I/O sensors and devices.
The main challenge is the lack of knowledge and skills in modern technologies among technical staff and decision makers in industrial organizations.
A an aside, in my early days I hopped on a 5-hour flight and drove 6 hours to replace a failed hard drive in a Windows NT machine used as an HMI. Then a year later, replaced it and all the other clients with a vSphere stack. The local resources, both internal and external, were too intimidated to touch it.
I'd be in favor of a "reset" in automation, it feels like fighting city hall.
It's a critical issue. Resources are wasted, and soon we won't be able to waste as much as we did, as the abundance era is coming to an end. The desire and need for higher efficiency through highly complex technology is only to increase, as the population gets older and older.
I can easily see mandatory IT training (like the current mandatory army training in some countries) and states standardizing certain technologies to avoid fragmentation and thus freezing progress, for good reasons. Like forbidding any database to be used in production except 3 most complete ones or banning all web frameworks except React and Svelte (arbitrary). It's not that they won't want progress, but they won't be able to afford progress and the resulting skill fragmentation in the IT workers while people are hungry and money is ever tighter.
Beckhoff & B&R Automation are part of the way there. They both have some really slick portfolios. IMO, on paper, these are the two most advanced control system companies (with large sales volume).
“Stale PLC programming languages” might be stale and in need of a rework, but “rewrite in rust” entirely missed the value proposition. Memory safety is important, sure, but these systems aren’t usually ever allocating memory or taking actions that aren’t deterministic. PLCs usually operate in strict realtime environments. Like each operation contains a known number of clock cycles, and is timed to match physical “stuff” moving in the real world. To rewrite in rust, you’d need a flavor of rust where you can deterministically know the timing of ops and calibrate the timing of each branch of any control paths.
That said, there is a market for softer realtime PLCs and companies like Rockwell sell Windows IoT hardware- but they still contain a strict-realtime companion controller. Arduino is now selling a mountable PLC that can be programmed using their tools, but even they support traditional PLC programming languages.
Rust and C code can also operate in strict real-time embedded environments provided some basic rules are followed like "no dynamic memory allocation". This done all the time.
If one follows hard real-time coding standards like Misra C or "JPL real-time C" (and these standards can also be applied to Rust, Zig, Ada, etc.) the code will run deterministically on a given target... just like PLC code running is not necessarily any more deterministic than C code (no dynamic allocation) running on an embedded processor. In fact, many PLC's today run a "PLC code execution" engine on top of a real-time operating system like QNX (which I think is mostly C code). Even in some older PLC's, it is still C firmware that's interpreting and running the PLC code.
PLC programming "languages" (ladder logic, FBD, CFC) were designed for their programming audience, who are not software engineers. It is difficult to represent complex logic and numerical code in these languages and that limits the sophistication of algorithms that can be implemented on these systems. For instance: try writing a model predictive control routine in ladder logic; I think it could be done but I'd lose my remaining hair doing it.
PLC Structured Text is very similar to Pascal and pretty capable, but folks generally don't write model predictive control algorithms in Structured Text either.
It is hard to orchestrate multiple PLC to run as a cohesive, deterministic unit. The interfaces between PLC often need to be kept simple and sometime this communication is less real-time. Things are a lot more advanced in cluster computing.
The limitations of current PLC architectures is already a pain point for complex control system, like large robotic manufacturing lines or optimal control of HVAC in large buildings)... and it's going to get worse as performance demands increase. Again, as mentioned above, I think Beckhoff and B&R are further along the evolutionary path than others in the industry.
Spec wise, some low power systems like an Intel NUC, LattePanda Sigma, or Zimaboard. You could fit 3/4 of them in a single 1u with a shared power supply. They could even offer a full 1u with desktop grade chips on the same sleds.
I have thought about building one myself, but it's a large investment of time that I can't seem to find lately.
https://canonical.com/blog/jumpstart-training-with-the-orang...
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/06/hands...
Price point?
If you want to play around with their Hubris OS: "You wanna buy an STM32H753 eval board. You can download Hubris, and then you’ve got – you’ve got an Oxide computer. You have it for 20 bucks.”
[0] https://changelog.com/friends/8
https://estore.st.com/en/stm32h753i-eval2-cpn.html
I’ve not personally used it, but their stack of software is open source, and according to some commenters in the thread, super high quality.
Don’t know if oxide would want or be able to compete in the low cost market but a bigger a more expensive desktop/workstation as a mini homelab cloud could be a great option to get people trained on the oxide platform.
Do they actually assemble and build their own racks of hardware, or is that outsourced? Somewhere, there must be an assembly plant. If this stuff actually exists. It's hard to even find pictures of their products. Do they have production installations?
[1] https://oxide.computer/careers
First rack shipped to costumer Jul 1, 2023: https://twitter.com/oxidecomputer/status/1674901883130114048
Here is a picture an incomplete rack: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FfT7MHoUoAE90QZ?format=jpg&name=...
You can find other pictures on twitter and other places.
Certainly odd but not out of the ordinary for a small Bay Area start-up where the Founders have a ton of cash and the focus is mostly on what they personally want to do. Posts like these are b/c the Founders want to hire 1-3 people who fit exactly into alignment with them.
We’re about 60 people, currently.
Deleted Comment
https://oxide.computer/podcasts/on-the-metal
The most recent few episodes have been about corporate open source and they've had excellent guests, like Kelsey Hightower. Definitely the best computer related podcasts out there. Bryan and Adam are great hosts and their humor is always a delight.
Other podcasts I'd recommend: ADSP [1] (if you're into programming), 2.5 admins [2] (if you're into computers). But I have no recommendations about hardware design because AFAIK the podcasts you mention and what Oxide is doing are pretty unique.
[1] Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs https://adspthepodcast.com/
[2] Allan Jude, Jim Salter, Joe Ressington https://2.5admins.com/
In a similar vein, Embedded.fm is a great podcast for embedded SW. Though I bet Oxide's take on embedded rust is a lot different than the hosts of that show!
https://softiron.com/hypercloud/
https://softiron.com/blog/run-bmc-why-we-decided-to-build-ou...