I was writing up a response to a reporter’s questions about the new round of systems management companies (for example, FiveRuns, OpenCountry [which I haven’t seen yet], Hyperic, Qlusters, Versiera, SourceLabs, Splunk, Spiceworks, the OMC crew, etc.) and found myself wanting to type “Systems Management 2.0” as their moniker. I felt cheesy, and avoided it.
While most of the platforms in that group have much of the spirit and technology of Web 2.0, the “2.0 meme” seems a bit tired. I don’t want to be the one to establish that phrase.
What is the Label?
That said, increasingly, I need a general label to apply to what I find myself calling “The New Systems Management Folks” or “The New Crop of Systems Management Companies and Projects.” As those two clunky phrased show, I haven’t come up with a good phrase yet.
For those of you either in that group or who are interested in them, what do you call yourselfs/them? Or, what phrases do you think would work? Or…does Systems Management 2.0 fit the bill?
Disclaimer: FiveRuns and SourceLabs are clients.
Technorati Tags: fiveruns, qlusters, sourcelabs, spiceworks, splunk, versiera, web2.0, words
Have they developed an open standard for SM that could become a guiding vision or are they all just creating their own methods for doing a task? It seems the latter, but maybe I'm just behind on my research of them… tough to sell a customer on being able to do 1/3 of what say Tivoli can do, "but we're open source"… paying customers don't tend to care – they do care about whether they have "exit power" if your SM apps suck (hence they may care about standards…)
As a group, no they haven't. Much of the advice we give them revolves around that problem. And the rest of your points are spot-on.
To be fair, the OMC is ostesibly tasked with such stuff, so we'll see what happens.
The classic in Gentoo is Foo-ng (as in next-generation). So, management-ng.
Ah, that's very nice, Donnie. Thanks! 😉