Comment on this weblog
You must be logged in to the O'Reilly Network to post a comment.

Showing messages 1 through 9 of 9.

• "Who Owns Gartner?" article
  2003-11-18 08:12:50  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Information Week just wrote a cover story entitled "Who Owns Gartner?" A VC firm just bought 38% of the company, and the VC's investors include people like Michael Dell, Larry Ellison, and Bill Gates.
  
  The article raises the *question* of whether the VC firm will influence Gartner's analysis, but it doesn't provide any answers. It's possible that the research will continue to be independent, but businesses are much more skeptical of these arrangements following scandals involving financial analysts who distorted research under pressure from their parent companies.
  
  Who Owns Gartner?
  http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=15800394

• Probably...
  2003-08-03 10:47:42  bjohnson [Reply | View]
  
  
  ...a mistake to take Gartner very seriously. The people and companies they are able to influence are clueless to begin with and confused after Gartner finishes with them.

• Gartner has history of cluelessnes
  2003-08-03 10:08:44  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Gartner neither understands technology, nor has the
  ability to collect the relevant information.
  
  Historically, Gartner has misjudged several major developments and their experts have shown repeatadly their inability to back up advice with data. Overall, Gartner is just as good as the fortune cookies in my local chinese stirfry place (but Gartner's advice is probably more expensive and less tasty).
  
  Should I remind everyone about their recent "Intrusion Detection Systems" study?
• Gartner has history of cluelessnes
  2003-08-04 13:17:22  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Gartner neither understands technology, nor has the ability to collect the relevant information.
  
  Having, unfortunately, a first hand knowledge of the methods that Gartner uses to gather its data, and having no respect for their "analysts" when it comes to designing the surveys or analysing the results, I have got to agree.
  
  People will say anything to get an irritating twit, who hasn't been trained even in the acronyms they are using, off of your phone. Think "low paid boiler room".

• Gartner's message was clear as mud
  2003-08-03 09:53:17  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Gartner's message wasn't clear, probably for legal reasons.
  
  I spoke to Gartner after their "go slow" piece was published and they are extremely bullish on Linux.
  
  They had very harsh words for SCO's transparent attempts at grabbing cash from corporations who are too timid to stand up for themselves.
  
  I think the reason for the disconnect is that Gartner is afraid a client will sue them after they roll out Linux and then get into an expensive legal fight with SCO down the road.
  
  Anyway - I dont' typically agree with most of what Gartner spews but in this case they are doing the right thing for their customers.
  

• Gartner's Motives Suspect
  2003-08-03 08:45:28  intheknow [Reply | View]
  
  
  Before starting my own technology company in the healthcare arena, I was vice president of information technology for a Fortune 100 firm. Although my company's focus was primarily to provide internal IT services, we did a large amount of "commercial" processing, i.e., outsourcing for FedEX, Blue Cross, etc. It was important to establish credibility by getting rated by the Gartner Group. Of course, we hired them to do "consulting," which almost certainly influenced their position about our company.
  
  Since there's no money in Open Source Linux products for a company like Gartner, does anybody really think they will do anything that favors what is a superior technology?
  

• SCO vs. Gartner
  2003-08-03 06:37:47  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  

  
  -posted as "anonymous by Paul Murphy (winface.com)
  

  
  Nice comment, but wrong on all counts.
  

  
  First: Gartner's advisory is just legal cover. They're not saying 'stop Linux deployment;" they are saying "make sure you understand the potential legal issues before proceeding."
  

  
  Second: Netcraft's measurement tools are after the fact, Gartner's advisory is well before the fact. lets wait six months and then look at what happened a month or two after Gartner's comment.
  

  
  I assume little or nothing will change, but saying that deployments in July reflect an intentional non-response to a July advisory assumes that companies could have known in April or March (when the deployment decisions were made) what Gartner would say in July.
  

  
  Third: the issue behind the advisory isn't SCO or Linux. It's IBM vs. SCOsource; more precisely it's IBM's decision to try to stall SCOsource by stalling the case in/on discovery rather than proceeding to court that's causing the FUD in the minds of executives facing Linux choices.
  

  
  In the end it's IBM's position that will hurt Linux, not because the infractions (assuming, as I do, that they exist) will directly affect Linux outside the Z/I/P series boxes, but because they are creating a huge market for lawyers in attacking or defending open source products. That's very bad news because it differentially limits open source in the US without affecting it in Europe and Asia - potentially condemning the US to "also ran" status in Linux adoption.

• SCO vs. Gartner
  2003-08-03 07:19:56  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  > not because the infractions (assuming, as I do,
  > that they exist) will directly affect Linux
  
  Wow. I knew there was someone out there who thinks that TSG is right in their claims. It's interesting to finally run across you. I am very impressed that you are holding this line totally and completely alone. Especially now that it's been proven that Caldera was the entity that put the UNIX code into the Linux kernel.
• SCO vs. Gartner
  2003-08-04 11:54:32  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Uh, where was it proven that? It can't be proven until SCO releases the names of the files or specific functions that it claims it held the copyright of, which they haven't done and claim they won't do until the case goes to court.