Missing in action: The OpenStackers lost from Gartner's quadrant

The more I look at Gartner's recent Magic Quadrant for x86 server virtualization infrastructure, the more confused I get. The analyst's take on Huawei's relevance to virtualization is particularly puzzling. Not so much because I disagree with Huawei's inclusion, but because many of the organizations left out are even more …

[Hans 1]

Huawei took Gartner rep out to dinner, easy.

[Probie]

Need Glassholes !!!

Perhaps Gartner could benefit from some new google glass clip on's !

It seems a bit (or massively) crazy that they miss out on Mirantis - they must have over 100 organizations using a generally available product that runs on x86_64 and does virtualization, plus management !!!

This one seems impossible to defend.

You did forget to mention that VMware or Cisco are in fact an Openstack contributors and have a distribution, seems crazy that they would miss those of as well.

For those that care check here https://www.openstack.org/marketplace/distros/

[jackandhishat]

Re: Need Glassholes !!!

Gartner can be useful for reference, provided good, savvy analysts are available.

Apparently none were this time round?

[hfhghg6767]

Come on, after the all flash debacle of Gartner, it's quite obvious that they are more directed by dinners and money, than by an honest evaluation of technology.

Gartner can be one starting point, but only relying on Gartner is a serious mistake. They are quickly losing their credibility.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet another poor article that mistakes noise for reality. For example, Mirantis may be busy, but most of their revenue comes from services, not product sales. On their customer success page (https://www.mirantis.com/company/customer-successes/) they can only come up with three paying customers using the Mirantis product as of today. The Gartner criteria for inclusion is clear and it's likely that Mirantis doesn't qualify.

Add to that Redhat distancing themselves from Mirantis, and there being almost no real product value-add from Mirantis above and beyond a.n.other Openstack distribution, then I think there has to be some question about the long term viability for Mirantis as a product organisation (which is what the quadrant is all about).

The same also goes for most of the other openstack start-ups; a lack of customers paying for the product and a not yet proven product based business model.

You forget Gartner's raison d'etre. Gartner plays to the CIO to advise them on what products they can buy without getting sacked in 3 years time. Garner magic quadrants are not driven by innovation or startups, but by those products which are low risk.

There's no question that the Gartner Quadrants will favour a long established organisation with deep pockets and little innovation over a new startup with fantastic technology, lots of VC capital but few customers.

Gartner is about recommending VHS over Betamax.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thomas Bittman: Worst analyst in the industry

GREAT ARTICLE TREVOR!

Here is the common denominator in a consistent pattern of bad analysis from Gartner: Thomas Bittman. Bittman is the lead analyst on Magic Quadrant for x86 Server Virtualization Infrastructure.

Bittman's opinions (based on conference straw polls) almost always defy common sense for any of us that use these technologies. Bittman is truly one of the worst analysts in the industry.

[Anonymous Coward]

Grtner doesn't understand OpenStack

Trevor, good article but Gartner analysts like Tom Bittman and Lydia Leong do not like OpenStack because they do not understand it and are completely blinded by AWS.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just lazy

If you haven't done so, click the MQ link in the article. Have you ever seen another MQ from Gartner that was so incomplete to be nearly worthless?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lost the Last Shred of Respect

I didn't know anyone around these parts had even one shred of respect for Gartner to lose, especially the columnists! I can't say I know the entirety of virtualization products and the companies involved, especially around OpenStack. However (you knew that was coming, right?), somebody at Gartner has obviously used large quantities of alcohol, most likely binging, to erase nearly all knowledge of even a few of the major players. Probably down to that last neuron truth to be told. No HP, no IBM? Huh?

Icon? Give them some more. Maybe they'll forget who they work for. Permanently!

[Victor 2]

Oracle

You seem to have overlooked the fact that Solaris 11 has OpenStack too, so your oracle - Red Hat argument is invalid. Oracle has integrated OpenStack in it's OSs, OVM, storage (even tape with HSM) and networking and yet you are crying because your own favorite isn't on the list.

Oracle has Solaris Zones, Oracle VM based on Xen, oracle Linux OpenStack with KVM and LXC, enterprise manager and Horizon support... Yet you claim oracle should not be on the x86 virtualization quadrant, because you don't want to. How's that for a biased opinion?

[[e-mail]]

Is it possible that Gartner released the incorrect version? Surely the QC or QM process within Gartner should have picked up such glaring irregularites in a report most corporates take as 'Dinkum Proof' or a being written by a God. It has long been thought that Gartner may bias their Magic Quadrants on potential sales to a customer/vendor similar to the bonds that lead to the financial crisis. What this does prove is that the or all Gartner Reports should be tested with a 'common sense' approach to alternative research to confirm findings. However as a consultant, alternative research is not done by corporates.

Is there a manner or means to get garner to withdraw the report and publish an Erratum?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Gartner would never concede that their analysts were idiots who can't get real jobs.