{"id":96,"date":"2006-04-27T17:26:18","date_gmt":"2006-04-28T00:26:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.redmonk.com\/cote\/wp\/?p=96"},"modified":"2006-04-27T17:26:18","modified_gmt":"2006-04-28T00:26:18","slug":"microsoft-management-summit-2006-the-midmarket-open-source-and-microsoft-systems-management","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/redmonk.com\/cote\/2006\/04\/27\/microsoft-management-summit-2006-the-midmarket-open-source-and-microsoft-systems-management\/","title":{"rendered":"Microsoft Management Summit 2006: The Midmarket, Open Source, and Microsoft Systems Management"},"content":{"rendered":"

When the word “systems management” comes up, it’s easy to think the discusion is about “enterprise systems management.” That’s because that’s all there’s been for a long, long time. Indeed, looking at it, the notion of tacking “enterprise” in front of “systems management” seems redundant. It’s been all enterprise all the time for a long time. Sure, there’s been small network and “ping” monitors, and plenty of mid-market platforms like my favorite title for a monitoring app: WhatsUp<\/a>. I always want to say “WhatsUp, home-fry-skillet-pan? How’s that router shakin’?!”.<\/p>\n

(I should probably clarify for those of you don’t know me personally that I separate out being able to say something funny about a word from making fun of what that word represents. I am a multi-layered smart-ass.)<\/p>\n

Long-tail Systems Management<\/h2>\n

Of late, the enterprise systems management crew has been questing for the suite spot (pun intended ;>) to sell to the mid-market. The target sales are people who don’t want to sign an “enterprise license” and\/or gorge on the stream of software and configuration that comes with enterprise systems management. The arguments that we hear from the OSS systems management vendors, closed source people like RTO<\/a> or CITTIO<\/a>, and now Microsoft tend to start with the line: “now, we all know that [enterprise] systems management platforms are way too complex and have too much in them. Not everyone needs that…”<\/p>\n

I should side-note that I don’t fully buy into that complexity pitch. The reality is much more complex (rich irony!). Most the systems management offerings out there can be complex, and some of it should be. But as someone who used to be on the front-lines of the fight, I can tell you that there’s a constant internal battle to make things as simple as possible. Furthermore, despite my love for Conway’s Law<\/a>, the size of a company doesn’t always drive the complexity or simplicity of the software it produces. Take Nagios configuration<\/a>: it’s way too much for simpletons like me.<\/p>\n

Dubious complexity discussions aside, the field of mid-market\/long-tail\/SMB systems management is wide open. From what I saw at MMS 2006, Microsoft is a powerful contender. And though the the low-level technical sessions were the only place where the word “open source” came up (as we’ll find out, we should move that discussion up the stack all the way to the keynotes), the fact of the matter is that Open Source systems management and Microsoft systems management are going to be going at it head-to-head over the next few years. Both of them are targeting the same market.<\/p>\n

OSS Systems Management<\/h2>\n

From the discusions I’ve had with OSS systems management vendors, they seem to be as oblivious to the Microsoft threat as Microsoft is of them. This might be because I haven’t thought, until now, to ask the question, “what are you going to do about Microsoft?” But, for all the railing each of them (and the closed-source mid-markets) does against the big 4 — BMC, CA, IBM, and HP — they’ve clearly spent time thinking about who they’re up against.<\/p>\n

Worrying about the big four at this point is a distraction. The OSS systems management vendors need to start thinking about Microsoft’s management and CCM offerings: the newly named System Center suite. Sure, the roadmap is long, but MOM and SMS are here today, and they’re quickly combining their powers, as it were, into System Center. The possibility of more Vista biffs<\/a> aside, 2007 will come quicker than we realize.<\/p>\n

Strange Bed-fellows<\/h2>\n

Microsoft can and does do well in the mid-market. More importantly, they have something to offer now and cheaply (MOM and SMS) that has the potential for a bright future. In that sense, mid-market systems management is the classic battle of Windows vs. *nix one. The more Windows in the mid-market, the easier it’ll be for Microsoft, the more *nix, the easier it’ll be for the OSS crew.<\/p>\n

To me, this means that right now is a great time for Microsoft and the OSS systems management crews to start working, or at least “partnering” closely together. Never mind what the public messaging is on such a relationship. The real reason is pure samurai mind-games<\/a>: “keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.”<\/p>\n

For Microsoft the advantage is keeping an eye on the innovation that’s occurring in open source systems management. For the open source systems management folks, the advantage is cracking into the Windows silo. Microsoft’s interest may not seem as great, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of the innovation occurring in systems management is coming from the open source companies and projects.<\/p>\n

Larry Ellison’s views on OSS IP<\/a> aside — Good luck with that! — OSS systems management people are the ones who’ll be, and are, delivering innovation in the area: hosted systems management, collaborative systems management, RSS, simplicity, new approaches, and perhaps even new service models around systems management.<\/p>\n

Let’s digress down that rabbit hole a bit…<\/p>\n

Open Source Systems Management Driving Innovation<\/h2>\n

I’ll save a lengthier discussion of innovations in OSS systems management for later, but here’s a little taste:<\/p>\n