No, it's about the opposite. I'm referring to the default, current
state of play here.
The issues for a vendor are demand and supportability. Do people want
to pay for support of X? Can you honestly say you have expertise to
support and influence X over at least a major release cycle (12-18
months)? The latter needs a reasonably reliable roadmap and
continuity.
I'm suggesting that in the current state, demand is low and going
down. The current code base seems de facto deprecated/unsupported
already, and possibly to be removed or dramatically changed into
something as-yet unclear. Nobody here seems to have taken a hard
decision regarding a next major release, but, the trajectory of that
decision seems clear if the current state remains the same.
>From my perspective, "middle-ground" new directions like adding a bit
of H2O, a bit of Spark, leaving bits of M/R code around, etc. are only
worse. I can see why there may be a little renewed demand for the new
bits, but then, why not go all in on one of them?
Because a substantially all-new direction is a different story. If a
"Mahout2O" or "Spahout" ("Mark"?) emerges as a plan, I could imagine a
lot of renewed demand. And a clearer underlying roadmap sounds
possible. It would remain to be seen, but there's nothing stopping
those ideas from becoming part of a distro too.
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please be explicit here. It sounds like you are saying that if Mahout goes
> in the proposed new direction that Cloudera will drop Mahout.
>
> Is that what you mean to say?
