Focus on working w/ Partners, not inventing your own product

On a recent post to Planet Ubuntu, Dustin Kirkland announced he is moving on from the Server Team to the Systems Integration Team with Canonical and also talks about a new product called “Ubuntu Orchestra” a new product that is “a collection of the best free software services useful in provisioning, deploying, hosting, managing and orchestrating enterprise data center infrastructure services…”  He then goes on to talking about “the brave new world of Management and System Integration."  Will this new product work with Landscape or is it just another product?

I’m trying to understand why Canonical is spending time and money on Yet Another Product and Not Invented Here so it must not be good instead of working with the existing System Management providers to help move Ubuntu further and further into the enterprise.

Landscape is already defined as an easy-to-use management service how is this different from Orchestra? 

Here’s my frustration, with Canonical we have a company that is investing in two products for Systems Management, when there are companies that do this for a living they could partner with and get support. 

Can someone please explain both the difference in the projects and why Canonical is not working with other vendors for systems management?


4 thoughts on “Focus on working w/ Partners, not inventing your own product

  1. I’m quite happy to respond, as there are quite clear differences and integration points between Orchestra and Landscape. It’s my failing for not explaining this more clearly at this point.

    Orchestra does:
    * Bare metal provisioning using: cobbler, dhcp, pxe, tftp, debmirror, squid-deb-proxy; Note that *all* of these, are existing open source projects, ie, we didn’t go out and write out own because they were Not-Invented-Here
    * Ties together all of these separate projects and gets them working together well, out of the box
    * Configuration Management using: puppet, mcollective (also, best of breed open source software that was Not-Invented-Here)
    * Service Orchestration using: ensemble (this integration is not yet done, but coming soon; Ensemble was invented at Canonical to fill a need not yet met by other open source software)
    * Monitoring using: nagios (also, open source software that was Not-Invented-Here)

    Orchestra does not:
    * Have a web front end (beyond the default Cobbler web ui); it’s expected that Landscape will eventually grow hooks to manage Orchestra
    * Do package management (which Landscape does very well)
    * Require subscription fees; Orchestra is a free software project in Ubuntu; Landscape is an (awesome) for-pay service available from Canonical

    I’ll blog a detailed description about Orchestra soon. However, in the future, I would appreciate it if you approached such a question in a less hostile, more Ubuntu-friendly way. You could either post:
    a) a public comment to the blog post you reference
    b) or a private email or (better yet) a public email to the Ubuntu Server mailing list
    and ask for clarification there, rather than posting a private rant on your blog and spreading untruths.


    • Ah the whole that’s not very Ubuntu of you in responding to a critique…

      My complaint hopefully was never directed towards but towards the fact that once again Canonical is developing a product instead of working with partners. I know there are a lot of great products and programs that are being brought together in the project you are working on, the problem is there are partners in the enterprise world that are built around deployment of servers and hardware, truest me I work with one a company that focuses on this.

      Read my other posts complaining about this…. And another follow up post will come in response to this

  2. I’m not sure why you think that Canonical creating its’ own products means we don’t work with partners. We’re very interested to work with partners across the IT sector, and put lots of effort into it. The two things are not mutually exclusive. There are lots of companies that do systems management, because there are lots of options and customers/users like choice. So we’ll partner with IBM, Symantec, HP or anyone else if they’re interested in supporting Ubuntu!


    • Sorry Steve but it doesnt look that way. Name a Systems Management partner that supports Ubuntu? I’ve looked, CA doesn’t, Microsoft doesn’t, Symantec doesn’t, IBM/Tivoli doesn’t and even Dell’s KACE doesn’t

      But yet we have what looks like multiple management products created by Canonical instead of working within the existing commercial vendors to help bring your product to the Enterprise.

      Just calling it how I see it

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s