MS Beta Software To Manage Unix/Linux Systems 246
Tumbleweed writes "The Cross Platform and Interop team at Microsoft today announced some new beta products for managing Unix/Linux systems from MS Operations Manager 2007, as well as connectors for HP OpenView and IBM Tivoli Enterprise Console. Both betas are available at Microsoft Connect (search for systemcenter), according the blog."
Manage Unix/Linux Systems? (Score:3, Insightful)
How the fuck is MS going to make a gui to manage such systems?
Or are they just reimplementing an ssh terminal?
Keep away (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Manage Unix/Linux Systems? (Score:3, Insightful)
Command line or GUI, what Microsoft needs to do is to restrict the number of options available when administering Unix/Linux systems to the subset available for Windows. Then, the next question is: What can you do with *nix that you can't do with Windows (ignoring the crippled interface)? If the answer to that is: Nothing, then the next question is: Why not just use Windows?
Re:"Resistance is futile..." (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I do wonder whether this is another "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" tactic. Or at least an attempt by MS to create a "view" of Linux that it can control, perhaps in a way that is unflattering to Linux.
This may be a good thing in the long run (Score:5, Insightful)
Long term, this might be a help for Linux and other UNIX variants. A lot of companies are required, either due to regulations, contract or their own corporate policies to perform audits on computer systems. Having a "one stop shop" by MS where someone can punch a button and generate a report on vital machine statistics for every single thing hooked up to the corporate network, down to the USB powered urinals, regardless of OS being run, will allow IT shops more freedom in choosing operating systems.
Having OS independence for this tool would allow a shop to use Linux for a number of servers, but when audit time comes around, it will be as easy to print out a report about the machine's and how it adheres to corporate policy as the Windows machines. Audits of machine and network infrastructure security are a critical part of a lot of businesses and any tool that allows this to be made easier is definitely a help.
Using a tool like this, a business can not just say to a prospective client that "all our network connected computers have antivirus, antispyware, and firewall software installed that are kept updated", but actually show it, by showing a report that even the Solaris boxes have Mcafee installed [1] with current vdef files.
[1]: Yes, we all know about UNIX boxes and viruses, but there are lots of times when virus scanning software has to be present on all machines due to contract or legal reasons, even if the installed program just takes up space in
Re:Manage Unix/Linux Systems? (Score:3, Insightful)
I like a lot of webmin, but would rather just script quite a bit of stuff where I can. Much simpler than clickety clicks -- YMMV
The REAL question is: Are there *ANY* *nix system admins out there that WANT MS to manage their systems? My head about exploded when I read the title. On second reading, well, it makes sense to be able to deal with all things in the data center. I'm just not sure if MS has the m4d sk1l5 for doing so. I have yet to see a well managed MS data center installation.
Just an opinion
Re:Chose Wisely (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Manage Unix/Linux Systems? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Chose Wisely (Score:3, Insightful)
For OSS unix-management stuff I'd point to puppet, cfengine, FAI (debian specific) and others. As usual there is not "one tool to rule them all" but a set of building blocks that competent staff will assemble into something suitable to the task.
Re:"Resistance is futile..." (Score:2, Insightful)
It is. Microsoft is trying to create an abstraction layer to Linux. This means that, gradually (or in one foul swoop), Microsoft can replace all the abstracted functionality with its own code. That's if anyone bothers to use the product. Why anyone would want to introduce this kind of level of inefficiency is beyond me. Linux is perfectly able to be managed through its own interfaces - with free updates!
If you want to control Linux from a Microsoft system (or OS X), then there already are X clients around that work very well. I guess integration is where Microsoft is going to push its claim for usefulness.
I also wonder if this is leading down a path of stupidity. I doubt, in the long run, it's efficient to have too many diverse platforms running in a workplace. This introduces too many unknowns and makes it a nightmare to manage.