Posted on 05/10/2006 9:10:27 AM PDT by nickcarraway
A group of open source software vendors has teamed up with the hopes of ending the systems management dominance enjoyed by the likes of IBM, HP, BMC and CA. The companies today have formed the Open Management Consortium (OMC), hoping to get out the message that open source management tools have matured to the point where they can compete with proprietary packages.
The names of the OMC founding members could have come straight out of J.R.R. Tolkien's brain. There's Ayamon, Symbiot, Zenoss and then the slightly more traditional Qlusters and Emu Software. Each one of these organizations brings a different piece of the systems management toolset.
Ayamon sponsors the Nagios monitoring system that alerts administrators to network problems. Symbiot backs the openSIMS security management system. Zenoss does network and systems monitoring for medium-sized companies.
Qlusters then backs the openQRM management and automation software, while EMU Software delivers up NetDirector for managing things such as user groups, databases and directory services.
The most solid portion of OMC's pitch comes from the group's variety. Customers can pick up whichever management package works for them for a particular project. That's in stark contrast to the likes of IBM or HP that try to get customers to go whole hog with Tivoli or OpenView, respectively.
"We are bringing these first six projects together so that customers can have a choice," said William Hurley, CTO at Qlusters, in an interview with El Reg. "When customers have choice, they no longer have to do a rip and replace like guys at IBM and CA suggest."
The systems management market has clearly not been a favorite for customers over the years. You have to side with a vendor and then shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars or more for add-on packages to handle various tasks. An open source alternative would clearly give Linux savvy small- to medium-sized businesses a nice option.
The OMC pitch weakens in these early days when you realize that its the systems management crowd's attempt to mimic the LAMP (Linux Apache MySQL PHP/Perl/Python) stack that has become all the rage. Companies ranging in size from IBM and Red Hat down to services start-ups have put in a lot of work certifying the core LAMP software to work well together and then certifying additional packages that can fit into the LAMP combination.
There's no grand certification effort going with the OMC crowd. In fact, the initial run of OMC is really just a declaration that these open source vendors exist. They've set up a web site with limited information about the partnership, and that's about it at this point.
"I think the idea is that a formal structure will come about," said Mark Hinkle, a VP at Emu Software. "The first thing we have to do is come up with the conversation."
The organizations backing OMC do eventually plan to do more than just talk. They'll have joint sales and marketing programs and strive to make sure their applications work well together. In addition, they hope to add more companies to the group and even invite the likes of IBM and CA to see where they might contribute. In addition, OMC hopes to carve out some true "open standards" around systems management rather than relying on standards groups that require $100,000 a year for participation.
At the moment though, such plans are pretty far off. The OMC group seems set on using "conversation" as its key mechanism, which is a very open source thing to do, but we wonder how far that will carry them.
There's no question that open source systems management products deserve more attention. It's only natural that this part of the software market come under siege next with the OS, web server, application server and database conquered to a degree.
We wonder though how much IBM or CA will fear the open source "conversation." A more concerted effort to align the release cycles of all these open source packages and provide unified support around them would be welcomed and provide substantial competition against the giants.
That said, something like OMC had to happen. If done right, it will no doubt capture the attention of the dominant players. ®
IBM and CA will buy them all.
LOL. Could be. They've got the bucks.
Personally, I'd shed few tears if BMC were to go the way of the Dodo and Dinosaurs. It's the biggest resource hog you'll find on most of the systems I work on.
A bigger hog than Candle's Omegamon? I worked for that outfit for six months, before I figured out that performance monitoring software was a shell game that large companies exploited to the hilt with the three major players: Candle, BMC, and CA.
'sar' generates =tons= of stats. Actually, it generates more stuff than you can usefully use, and it is almost unnoticable when it runs. Granted, those other programs are probably doing some things that sar isn't, (like process monitoring), but they seem quite heavy for what they do.
Poor IBM. They thought their open source bomb would damage Microsoft.
I like both companies. I use both companies' products.
I don't use anything from SCO, which is a good thing, since it's on its way to Chapter 7.
What do you think of MS' overtures and deals with China? I recall you taking umbrage with the IBM-Lenovo deal, but haven't read anything from you about Gates cozying up the Chinese.
Just talking about the big picture, which few on the tech threads have ever got a glimpse of.
SCO, they may be headed to bankruptcy. Just like SGI, and several others before open source has finished scavaging the rest of the old Unix vendors. If/when Novell goes down, more people will finally understand the consequences. Right now IBM is keeping them afloat, but IBM earnings are down huge, and while they're squeezing a few more profit percents by firing Americans and hiring Asians, that gig's only going to get them so far.
Your hatred of IBM is irrational.
You know if it was up to me, we wouldn't selling any technology to China. We'd be trying to choke them off, like we did the Soviets. But if we're going to allow tech transfer to China, we should be handsomely rewarded for whatever crumbs we allow them to get their hands on. Including huge tarriffs and other markups. The last thing we should be trying to do is literally GIVE them software, like the open source mob demands, that's complete idiocy.
We should have the strictest copyright controls imaginable, if any technology transfers there at all, which is actually what Microsoft is trying to do, and you should know if you are actually following this controversy in the least. They're introducing copyright to China, and getting the red b*stards to hand over several billion US dollars in the process. That's one hell of a lot better than handing them Red Hat on a platter, just to watch them rename it Red Flag and never give us back a dime. Wouldn't you say?
I'm for maximum free trade and for US companies to get as much money as they possibly can.
Revenues are down, about 10% from last year. From USA TODAY, April 19 2006:
"Overall revenue of $20.7 billion fell 10% from $22.9 billion a year ago."
http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/earnings/2006-04-18-ibm_x.htm?csp=34
You're anal. I'm not going to argue with you about the health of an 80 billion dollar company.
There you go. Maybe you'll get something right yourself here in a minute.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.