Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Gartner: OpenStack Lacks Clarity

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the perils-of-developing-outdoors dept.

Cloud 77

An anonymous reader writes with a quick bite from El Reg: "The OpenStack open-source project has come in for criticism from a Gartner analyst because the claims made by companies frequently don't line up with reality. In a forthright post published on Tuesday Gartner analyst and research director Alessandro Perilli chided the OpenStack community for a lack of clarity, lack of transparency, lack of vision, and lack of pragmatism." An OpenStack developer disagrees, and instead suggests that the perceived lack of clarity is just a result of the open development process. You just don't get to see which Amazon cloud projects fail since they are hidden behind the corporate wall.

cancel ×

77 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Company claims don't line up with reality? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45473717)

I'm shocked!! Shocked, I say!!

Re:Company claims don't line up with reality? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45473803)

Here's your quarterly dividend check, monsieur.

Re:Company claims don't line up with reality? (5, Insightful)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about a year ago | (#45473889)

Gartner "study" disparages product competing with study's funder? Shocked! Simply Shocked!

Re:Company claims don't line up with reality? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45475585)

Want some entertainment?

Google the terms: gartner shill

My favorite response: "Giant Liar-for-Rent"

Re:Company claims don't line up with reality? (1)

Chris Aaron Gaun (3439079) | about a year ago | (#45476863)

If we had "funders" for our blogs, I'd be able to buy a lot more of those nice tin foil hats you're wearing.

translation from Gartner-speak... (4, Interesting)

swschrad (312009) | about a year ago | (#45474325)

"This can't be a good technology because they didn't pay us to write the paper. fortunately, our friends did."

Re:translation from Gartner-speak... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45474505)

Translation from neckbeard speak: I don't like what they said, so I'll attack them instead of addressing their points.

Re:translation from Gartner-speak... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45475427)

Mostly Ad Hominen is wrong, but there are are some groupings that are so consistently and deliberately wrong that it's the only way to treat things. If Florian says "X company has almost certainly infringed" then you know 100% that that company has not infringed. If that company actually had infringed then their opponents would simply get their lawyers and a few normal lawyers to report the fact. Use of Gartner is the same as use of Florian. It is a clear sign of a weak cause desperately looking for anything they can use to score points in the IT press. There's no way you will ever know how badly the major proprietary clouds are doing since they keep their sales secret. However, now that you know they had to call in Gartner you know that they are getting very desperate. Expect this to be one of the major reasons Monkey Boy had to go. Within the next year or two his failure in the cloud is going to come out too.

Good examples of this would include Nokia trying to show that Windows Phone would be a success; Microsoft trying to prove that there is no space for Linux in servers (think "TCO" studies) and similar.

Basically from this we know 100% that Open Source cloud is winning and the only question is: Eucalyptus or Open Stack. Before this report I would have said Eucalyptus every time just because it's a clearly defined and more stable platform. Now I know this Gartner report exists supporting my view I'm not so sure ;-)

What's not clear? (1)

Dishwasha (125561) | about a year ago | (#45473797)

What's not clear or pragmatic about the project goal of taking over the world?

Re:What's not clear? (1)

Microlith (54737) | about a year ago | (#45473871)

It just means that Gartner isn't thinking what they're thinking. They think they are, but it had something to do with porcupines and rubber nipples...

Re:What's not clear? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45473939)

Gartner is a well-known Microsoft shill. Is this really a surprise? Who wants to bet they'll be recommending Azure next?

Re:What's not clear? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#45474163)

Narf!

Clearly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45473811)

Clearly, OpenStack did not pay Gartner enough.

Just order some more analysis & deep insights, at the right treshold it will become all positive.

Not A Fan of Gartner but they have some points... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45473825)

OpenStack is a bit of a mess with way too many interdependent moving parts that seem to be upgraded and replaced at a pace that makes one's head spin. I can't even keep track of all the project codenames any more. I do think it's slowly getting better but I think have a lot of work to do to make it simpler and easier to setup and manage.

Re:Not A Fan of Gartner but they have some points. (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#45473897)

If it helps, corporate software is absolutely just as terrible.

Re:Not A Fan of Gartner but they have some points. (3, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about a year ago | (#45473983)

There's a difference, which is that most crappy corporate software isn't attempting to define standards and a platform for everyone else to build on top of. OpenStack claims to be developing a vendor-agnostic standard and reference implementation for interoperable systems.

Re:Not A Fan of Gartner but they have some points. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45474533)

Oh No! Really! Thats terrible. We better pay some 'analyst firm' to write some FUD denouncing it.

Oh wait...

Re:Not A Fan of Gartner but they have some points. (1)

jrumney (197329) | about a year ago | (#45477721)

There is another difference, which I think is more relevant to Gartner's report. Most crappy corporate software comes with glossy sales brochures written at a level that even an analyst can understand.

Re:Not A Fan of Gartner but they have some points. (2)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | about a year ago | (#45474049)

Really? Have you seen Azure? I don't mean "scoffed and dismissed it without knowing shit about it" like many would do.

It works very well and provides a _shitload_ of features, both PaaS and IaaS.

Re:Not A Fan of Gartner but they have some points. (2)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year ago | (#45474183)

I find frequent upgrades is better than buggy, under-featured 'enterprise' software that is not updated (as in fixed) for years.

True, though the timing is "convenient" (5, Informative)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about a year ago | (#45474211)

This was my impression, too. OpenStack has a lot of potential, but look at the way a "competitor" like Apache's CloudStack is presented, and the documentation and UIs for configuring OpenStack do seem to be much less developed if there's much there at all. There's an interesting comparison here [mirantis.com] , though it is more than a year old now.

Still, I doubt the timing of these comments on the Gartner blog are coincidental, given the pressure the big networking hardware companies have been under and the threat to them that SDN [wikipedia.org] represents.

For example, Cisco's stock price has been crashing for some time, and things like blowing a billion-dollar deal with Amazon [businessinsider.com] aren't helping their prospects or, presumably, their share price. The same site (it's Business Insider, so apply your own level of confidence in anything they say) describes Cisco's response as 'a confusing array of products named "Application Centric Infrastructure (ACI)"' [businessinsider.com] , but one thing we do know ACI is that much of it will be unavailable until next year.

I have no insider knowledge of who might have "encouraged" this particular set of comments from Gartner, but Big Networking is probably a fairly regular "customer", so I have at least one plausible theory. :-)

Re:True, though the timing is "convenient" (2)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about a year ago | (#45474329)

I think the timing of his articles are based on his attendance at the OpenStack Summit. Since he is writing the articles after only a week, I don't think the timing is "convenient" but rather "coincidental". Now if he wrote this article 4 months from now and talks about his observation at this conference, I would have been more inclined to believe that they withheld his article until it could be used to counter some major announcement.

Re:True, though the timing is "convenient" (2)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about a year ago | (#45474543)

I'm not sure what Occam's razor suggests here, as either explanation seems both simple and plausible. It's only been a couple of weeks since Cisco announced the Insieme arrangement and ACI, too. Perhaps you're right and it's just coincidence, or maybe there is some truth in both theories.

Re:True, though the timing is "convenient" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45474397)

For example, Cisco's stock price has been crashing for some time, and things like blowing a billion-dollar deal with Amazon [businessinsider.com] aren't helping their prospects or, presumably, their share price.

Yes, why just 5 years ago, Cisco was at $16 dollars a share!
And a year ago, it was $18.34 a share!
And today, it's $21.39 a share! Yes, a clear indication of an imminent crash!

Pro tip: a drop of $2-3/share a week ago, while a steep drop, is not "crashing for some time." That drop was a reflection of their weak earnings and mixed guidance, and the trend since the announcement has been upwards, though I expect it'll be another year or so before the price recovers to its current levels. Cisco isn't going anywhere anytime soon - certainly not in the next 6-12 months before it ships its ACI hardware, and even if that fails, it'll be a long time before SDN kills them off.

Over the last 5 years, Cisco is still significantly UP, it's issuing dividends, and posting profits. SDN is disruptive - but it's not the first (nor will it be the last) disruptive force to hit the hardware markets. They've weathered other shocks before, I fully expect they'll manage to survive OpenStack.

Re:True, though the timing is "convenient" (2)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about a year ago | (#45474799)

Fair enough, calling it a crash was probably an overstatement. Still, after a series of bad news reports in recent months, from missed targets to laying off thousands of employees, along with guidance that wasn't exactly glowing in confidence on the last call, their share price has given up most of the gains in the first months of 2013.

Maybe you're right and they'll weather SDN as they've fought off other threats before, but I have a feeling this time really could be different. My simple reason is that a lot of these big networking companies are making large margins on their device sales, and a lot of the functionality in those boxes can increasingly be achieved using commodity hardware and freely available software. That creates market conditions open to disruption. Factor in effects like the NSA mess potentially hurting international sales and the general incompetence of the US government hurting domestic sales, and it's a tough market for Cisco right now.

It was interesting that in the first BI article I linked, they described an internal analysis by Cisco execs that said going into the SDN business would 'turn Cisco's "$43 billion business into a $22 billion business"'. Of course that was an anonymous source "close to the company" so we probably shouldn't read too much into it, but if the key point is true, it gives us some indication of how much of a change in the market Cisco's own people think is possible.

Giant mess. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45473839)

I'm involved in OpenStack and my initial conclusion is that Gartner is completely wrong. It doesn't have a lack of clarity, it has none and in general is just a giant fucking mess of haphazard spaghetti code that you can _probably_ make work (in a large corporation, not on your closet server) if you put 50 good developers on it and have 100 other people to support the environment.

They have 90 little pieces, each with their own completely different way of doing shit. It's all a mishmash of Python and assorted scripts.

It's the new cool kid, though. A lot of people have sipped the kool-aid.

Re:Giant mess. (2)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year ago | (#45473913)

So in other words, it's exactly like a commercial package, except the support staff are on your payroll rather than someone else's, so you actually get something set for your needs rather than whatever the salesman was pushing.

Re:Giant mess. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45473953)

Yes, only with 1/3rd the features, half the ease of support, and 10% of the focus and integration.

Re:Giant mess. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45474223)

Really? AWS and Azure are "giant fucking messes of haphazard spaghetti code that you can _probably_ make work in a large corporation if you put 50 good developers on it and have 100 other people to support the environment?"

You sure about that?

Because those are the commercial packages that do what OpenStack does - and having used both of them, they're pretty goddamned solid.

Re:Giant mess. (1)

robmv (855035) | about a year ago | (#45474321)

Where can I download that thing called AWS and Azure to install on my private cloud?

Re:Giant mess. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45474439)

Right here [amazon.com] , silly!

And here [windowsazure.com] !

And here [eucalyptus.com] !

HTH!

Re:Giant mess. (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#45475207)

VPC is just a clipped off segment of Amazon's cloud. I don't see the offer of the software such that I could build my own private version of their cloud.

Re:Giant mess. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45476437)

So go download Eucalyptus, and roll your own compatible version, which you can migrate right up to AWS with ease when you realize what a retarded notion it is to "run your own cloud" for an office of 200 people who work for a shipping company.

Re:Giant mess. (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | about a year ago | (#45474513)

Fail. You can use both on your private cloud.

Re:Giant mess. (1)

robmv (855035) | about a year ago | (#45474629)

Really, can I download all the management tools that Amazon uses in AWS? If you tell me that I can use Xen and other OSS code that Amazon uses will only tell me you don't get what I am talking about

Re:Giant mess. (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about a year ago | (#45477025)

Really, can I download all the management tools that Amazon uses in AWS? If you tell me that I can use Xen and other OSS code that Amazon uses will only tell me you don't get what I am talking about

A lot of those tools are just shell scripts of middling complexity. Likewise with the web admin apps. It's not trivial, but I could whip out some PHP to drive the shell scripts in - well, not an hour, but probably less than a week for the most important functions.

Then again, I'm used to administering Xen from its primitives, so for me that's mostly just automating stuff I've done many times before.

Re:Giant mess. (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about a year ago | (#45474355)

it's exactly like a commercial package, except the support staff are on your payroll rather than someone else's,

Why use experts that are already familiar with a product when you can spend money trying to get your own group of people up to speed?

Re:Giant mess. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45474551)

Egg Fucking Zactly. Someone else who understands. Everyone wants to reinvent the wheel.

Soon the "cloud" will be as commodity as the "OS". Most companies use distributions of Linux or they use Windows, they don't download millions of lines of shitty, disjointed Python code.

Let people specialize. When you can download OpenStack and easily get it up and running in a real enterprise without a shitload of people do painstakingly slave over it, I'll take it seriously.

Re:Giant mess. (1)

Sique (173459) | about a year ago | (#45474719)

Everyone wants to reinvent the wheel.

As the wise once [qdb.us] said:

(rickest) reinventing the wheel is exactly what allows us to travel 80mph without even feeling it. the original wheel fell apart at about 5mph after 100 yards. now they're rubber, self-healing, last 4000 times longer. whoever intended the phrase "you're reinventing the wheel" to be an insult was an idiot.

Re:Giant mess. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45476625)

That's not "reinventing" the wheel - that's "improving" the materials, manufacture, and design of the existing wheels.

If every year we threw away every plan in existence for a wheel, and could manage to expunge knowledge of it from all of humankind, then you can bet that the wheels we have today would not have been improved to last 4000 times longer. We'd be staring at the axles on our cars going, "gee, if only there was something we could put on this axle to help the car move. Maybe we should bolt skis? skid plates? jet thrusters? Tank treads? Hmm... if only we had something that rolled.... EUREKA!"

It's reinventing the wheel to create 17,000 different OpenStack variants, or Linux distros. It's NOT reinventing the wheel to take what's there, and improve it to a usable and robust state.

Re:Giant mess. (1)

Sique (173459) | about a year ago | (#45477325)

Your definition of "reinvention" differs strongly from mine.

Re:Giant mess. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45477955)

By which you mean, "Sique's definition of reinvention has no relationship to the actual definition and commonly accepted usage of the phrase"?

Reinvention means rebuilding from first principles. Refinement means improving an existing thing. A better rubber tire after 50 years of iteration on materials, construction, manufacture, and process is refinement - not reinvention.

Of course, you're also a fucking idiot who doesn't understand the distinction between "tire" (a specific implementation of a wheel) and "wheel" (the specific classical simple machine). So why should I be surprised that your definitions are oddly inconsistent with commonly accepted standard English?

Re:Giant mess. (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#45474191)

It doesn't have a lack of clarity, it has none

It probably doesn't help that at least one of those involved lack an understanding of the word "lack."

Funded by (4, Insightful)

Havokmon (89874) | about a year ago | (#45473903)

Gartner is nothing more than a PR company for whoever pays for their 'analysis'.

Re:Funded by (2)

dyingtolive (1393037) | about a year ago | (#45473943)

And I was just thinking: "Wait, Gartner is calling attention to the claims made by companies not reflecting reality?! They going to out themselves next?"

Re:Funded by (5, Funny)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about a year ago | (#45473979)

If Gartner predicted the Sun was coming up tomorrow, I'd be wondering who paid them to say it, and what the angle was.

Re:Funded by (5, Funny)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year ago | (#45474203)

I'd be checking IBM's site for a 'Sunrise' product. Of course with IBM's site, I'd have to go back and actually use Google to find it.

Re:Funded by (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about a year ago | (#45477041)

If Gartner predicted the Sun was coming up tomorrow, I'd be wondering who paid them to say it, and what the angle was.

And ... once again we see the need for a mod of "Sad, but true".

Re:Funded by (3, Informative)

s.petry (762400) | about a year ago | (#45474793)

While I agree with your point, I have to also agree with a few of the points Gartner's analyst made. Ever try to implement OpenStack? Some things are okay (Virtual Machines), but other things are horribly convoluted (Virtual Routing). Version upgrades break previous functionality, and documentation is lacking so finding what actually broken requires lots of time and effort. Waiting for the documentation to catch up is fine until you need a feature or bug fix in the latest version.

I'm not claiming that it's horrible mind you, but rather pointing out that it needs some time to mature. Gartner's opinion does not mention the fact that OpenSource products like this can do very well (Apache, Linux, MariaDB/MySQL). At the same time, enough OpenSource projects fall off the Earth to have some concerns.

Re:Funded by (4, Insightful)

Havokmon (89874) | about a year ago | (#45474853)

While I agree with your point, I have to also agree with a few of the points Gartner's analyst made. Ever try to implement OpenStack? Some things are okay (Virtual Machines), but other things are horribly convoluted (Virtual Routing). Version upgrades break previous functionality, and documentation is lacking so finding what actually broken requires lots of time and effort. Waiting for the documentation to catch up is fine until you need a feature or bug fix in the latest version.

I'm not claiming that it's horrible mind you, but rather pointing out that it needs some time to mature. Gartner's opinion does not mention the fact that OpenSource products like this can do very well (Apache, Linux, MariaDB/MySQL). At the same time, enough OpenSource projects fall off the Earth to have some concerns.

"A lie is best placed between two truths."

Gartner always makes some valid points. They are masters of manipulation.

While it sounds like you're well-informed, the majority of their followers are not and I would go so far as to say those people, even when reading the details presented within, rarely truly understand the content.

Re:Funded by (1)

s.petry (762400) | about a year ago | (#45475037)

An easy to spot fallacy is when someone claims that facts are no longer facts because someone untrustworthy presented them. It's easy to cross over into the same realm as "those people" you are referring to when doing so.

And "hell yes", I'm guilty of doing the same thing often enough. I don't like to, or do so intentionally, but I am human.

Re:Funded by (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#45475279)

His point was subtly different though. He doesn't claim that the facts aren't facts because of who wrote about them, he's saying they are well known for slipping non-facts in with the facts and calls for a very careful reading to distinguish the two.

That is perfectly reasonable. One should always give extra scrutiny to anything said by someone with that sort of history.

Re:Funded by (1)

s.petry (762400) | about a year ago | (#45475695)

Fair point, but my statement was just as valid.

Could say the same about Gartner (4, Informative)

DarkOx (621550) | about a year ago | (#45473995)

Its funny, I would apply almost all those same vague criticisms to Gartner.

I wish people would just quick subscribing to the pay to play crap opinion pieces they try to pass off as research. Its painful obvious to anyone who actually has to /use/administer/support/deploy an IT product where it falls in the "magic quadrant" has more to do with the market cap of the company behind it, that the products own merits.

Re:Could say the same about Gartner (0)

Chris Aaron Gaun (3439079) | about a year ago | (#45476811)

As a Gartner analyst, this "quick subscribing" sounds like an awesome idea. Please tell me more!

Gartner lacks intelligence (0)

NynexNinja (379583) | about a year ago | (#45474017)

The very nature of OpenStack is pretty clear. If you have any questions about "clarity", go download the source code and set it up for yourself and setup your own VPDC.

Re:Gartner lacks intelligence (0)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | about a year ago | (#45474067)

Oh fucking bullshit. Enough already. Sorry, your "private cloud running on your cool home server" has absolutely fucking _nothing_ to do with bringing up an enterprise private cloud.

Re:Gartner lacks intelligence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45474613)

please.... home clouds can be just as much a proof of concept as an enterprise cloud. how much do you put into it is what counts

Re:Gartner lacks intelligence (1)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | about a year ago | (#45477087)

please.... home clouds can be just as much a proof of concept as an enterprise cloud. how much do you put into it is what counts

Shirley you can't be serious.

Re:Gartner lacks intelligence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45477753)

please.... home clouds can be just as much a proof of concept as an enterprise cloud. how much do you put into it is what counts

Shirley you can't be serious.

I am serious.
And stop calling me Shirley.

Re:Gartner lacks intelligence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45479029)

Saw this: http://cloudbruno.tumblr.com/post/67350876780/21-reasons-you-shouldnt-use-openstack-for-your-private
"Although NASA was one of the founders of OpenStack (initial code came from NASA), NASA itself has abandoned OpenStack, finding it unsuitable.Writing good IAAS software is not rocket science however, but OpenStack has had 3 years to try and has failed.". Didn't know NASA had moved on. OS still trumpets "founded by NASA".

Re:Gartner lacks intelligence (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45474157)

Typical techie response which lacks insight into the needs of the rest of the world...

Not that I am defending Gartner - they are a marketing company which publishes positions based on who has paid them money - but the whole "just get the source code and ..." thinking demonstrates a basic lack of understanding for the rest of the world. It is just as bad and just as myopic as Gartner is.

Re:Gartner lacks intelligence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45476009)

Well, we spend the time to write the source - we expect you to spend the time to understand it. We didn't write it so that everyone could ask for a mouth breathers' explanation of "how it works".

Perhaps it's less than we're lack understanding with the rest of the world, and that we can't stand the ignorance of the masses.

Re:Gartner lacks intelligence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45474841)

You my friend, should be purged from the connected world.

Evidence that OpenStack is amazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45474107)

All the closed services are scared as hell, and paying out the nose for "studies" to make them look better.

Wait, what? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#45474127)

A Gartner Analyst attacked something for 'lacking clarity' and 'claims that frequently don't line up with reality'? Please give me a moment to collect my jaw from the floor and restore it to its operating location.

I'm not sure I've ever seen such a bold example of un-selfawareness...

Alternatives are not good (1)

cybaz (538103) | about a year ago | (#45474359)

Openstack is immature, and the project not very cohesive. He is right that the networking in neutron is way behind where it needs to be. However I don't see a lot of alternatives if you run a large cloud with unique requirements. You can use Amazon, but then you have to ask how much you trust Amazon's cloud. You can spend a lot of money and buy VMWare, but you are locked in with VMWare's enterprise specific focus.

Re:Alternatives are not good (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | about a year ago | (#45474563)

VMWare's enterprise focus? Who do you think Gartner is talking to? VMWare and Azure both have mature (well, relatively) solutions that don't require you to basically do it yourself with a bunch of discrete tools that sort of work together.

Re:Alternatives are not good (1)

EvilSS (557649) | about a year ago | (#45474611)

I think that's part of his point. Big "cloud" providers seem to like OpenStack, but "cloud" is their bread and butter, so they can hire around it. Enterprises are a totally different use case, and that is the area his paper is addressing. They don't want to re-invent the wheel to roll out their infrastructure, they want an off the shelf solution that is as easy to maintain and implement as possible*. Most enterprises are not in the IT business, they are in the [insert business sector here] business. An enterprise is going to try to compare OpenStack to VMWare or maybe Hyper-V and that's where the narrative really starts to break down.

*These are usually the infrastructure or operations groups, not development groups, within enterprise IT that are dealing with hypervisors. We all know enterprise development does NOT often share that mentality and that usually never works out well in the end.

Re:Alternatives are not good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45477055)

Openstack is immature, and the project not very cohesive. He is right that the networking in neutron is way behind where it needs to be. However I don't see a lot of alternatives if you run a large cloud with unique requirements. You can use Amazon, but then you have to ask how much you trust Amazon's cloud. You can spend a lot of money and buy VMWare, but you are locked in with VMWare's enterprise specific focus.

Of course I trust Amazon's cloud. It's hooked right into the US Government! Can't get more trustable than the USA!

Gartner reports what its subscribers want to hear (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45474807)

I've always noticed a Gartner bias towards what it's subscription customers - the large corporate IT shops - want to hear. Back in the day when mainframes were dominant, Gartner' s predictions for the UNIX market were always way to low so that the mainframers would remain confident that they were still using the right technology. I was in a mainframe shop, pushing UNIX, and had access to Gartner. Each quarter, when they produced their once-again ridiculously low predictions for the market, there was never any acknowledgement of how the previous quarter's estimates we so off the mark.

Now we have the same situation with VMWare and related management tools. The big IT shops have poured a fortune into training their people and documenting their procedures. It doesn't matter how good KVM and OpenStack are. Gartner tells them this new-fangled stuff is still too risky. So their customers are happy and stick with the status quo.

Gartner: consistently wrong, for 20 years (1)

echtertyp (1094605) | about a year ago | (#45475033)

If you have the chance, go back and look at what Gartner has condescendingly pontificated on as "inevitable" over the years. Gartner's track record is abysmal. If they were a stockbroker, you'd make a mint just by being contrarian to their advice.

Re:Gartner: consistently wrong, for 20 years (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45535723)

Give a few examples - I would love to use them in presentations against the 'almighty' Gartner predictions.

The Illusion of Legitimacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45475151)

I love how "a Gartner analyst" is so often used to attempt to convey an aura of legitimacy that would otherwise not exist.

J. Random Hobo, a Gartner analyst, released a white paper study pontificating on the reduced efficacy of khakis found in the Goodwill dumpster to conceal urine stains, as opposed to the more desirable brown corduroys.

Gartner ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45475449)

I love Gartner reports. I have had a 25 year technology career based on doing the opposite of what the say.
Working out nicely BTW

Cultivating the OpenStack Garden .. (1)

codeusirae (3036835) | about a year ago | (#45475755)

"The difference between these two cloud giant is that everything OpenStack does, it does in the open. All our successes and failures are in the open.

"The OpenStack community is an awesome software factory which has an awe-inspiring process for managing releases with a continuous integration, source code management, peer review tools so much so that one of its community members has packaged up the process itself as a product offering." ref [tumblr.com]

Ok so rebut the comments (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45478513)

I see a lot of ad hominem attacks on Gartner here but I'm actually interested in this topic - where are the factual rebuttals of what this analyst said?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?