Interoperability: First Benefit Microsoft

[Editor's Note: Microsoft Watch has moved to a first-name convention rather than referring to people by the last name.]

I waited more than 24 hours after my Microsoft management briefing before blogging. I got a big pitch about new tools for managing other platforms (not just Windows) and additional interoperability efforts. I needed time to cut through Microsoft's PR positioning to get to the announcements' substance.

First, a quick recap of the announcements:

• System Center Operations Manager 2007 Cross-Platform Extensions public beta
• System Center Virtual Machine Manager 2008 public beta
• System Center Operations Manager 2007 Connectors beta

The management tools reach beyond the Microsoft server stack to other platforms. Operations Manager 2007 can "natively manage Unix and Linux as well," said Larry Orecklin, Microsoft's general manager of server infrastructure. "And that's a big deal for Microsoft."

I'll say. Further, Virtual Machine Manager will be capable of managing Microsoft's Hyper-V or Virtual Server 2005 R2 and VMware's ESX Server. One could almost see legitimacy to Microsoft's so-called "Interoperability Principles" in the announcements. Almost.

Microsoft isn't a charity. It's a business, and Microsoft isn't in the business of helping competitors. So I had to ask: What's the benefit to Microsoft of supporting competing platforms, particularly Linux? Open-source software has surprising traction in the server market, but isn't going as far or as fast on the desktop. One reason: There are missing pieces along the vertical server-to-desktop stack. Why should Microsoft offer IT tools that would ease Linux management alongside Windows or Windows Server?

Of course, I asked Larry. "The perspective we started with was the customer. The environment is getting more complex, not less complex," he said. Larry's answer was pretty much what I expected. He asserted that "management is at the heart and soul" of Microsoft's approach to dealing with this complexity. Support for the other platforms is "the right thing for those customers, and it's the right thing for Microsoft."

Complexity I buy as a reason and also as the benefit for Microsoft. Paul DeGroot, an analyst with Directions on Microsoft, said he also sees complexity as a huge problem: "The greatest need for management tools is at the largest companies, where systems may be widely distributed, heterogenous, and sometimes old or legacy systems. Very few, if any, of those companies are pure Microsoft shops."

Paul added, "Linux servers are widely used in some of those companies, and Microsoft does not have a chance against management tools from other vendors that are cross-platform unless it too is cross-platform. Running multiple management tools is rarely an option and simply makes management more complex." Management systems are supposed to reduce complexity, not increase it.

In a sense, then, Microsoft is accepting the inevitable, trying to transcend its Linux denial: The open-source platform has established a firm hold on the server.

"Microsoft's strategy for managing anything non-Microsoft is unclear," said Gartner analyst David Williams. "It appears opportunistic to say the least."

Paul's colleague, Rob Helm, offered some additional perspective: "Management software is so complicated that many customers won't invest in it just to manage Microsoft products. So the management group at Microsoft has to support other platforms to grow."

Now that's an explanation that makes loads of sense and it resonates with Microsoft's choice of supporting partners, including Novell and Xandros, which earlier signed licensing agreements with Microsoft. If there were truly a broad benefit beyond Microsoft, surely Red Hat and other Linux providers would broadly support the management tools. Conceptually, they would benefit from better heterogenous management.

But the benefits aren't solely Microsoft's. "If an organization standardizes on Microsoft's management technology, it could get away with hiring fewer Unix sysadmins," Ron explained. "That could ultimately strengthen Microsoft's position inside the organization, not weaken it."

He's got a point. Linux has largely gained share from Unix rather than Windows. Many IT organizations simply transfer Unix experience to Linux. But what if they could do away with Unix administrators, particularly in tough economic times? Microsoft would have in place tools for managing new Windows systems brought in to replace Unix servers or even Linux. And Microsoft would do better delivering tools for managing its stuff than for competing platforms, even setting aside competitive considerations.

David seemed to agree: "Microsoft's Windows management capabilities remain way better than anything they offer for Linux. After all, Microsoft not only monitors the Windows OS but also all software on the platform with a Microsoft logo."

Microsoft would not do "the same for Linux," he emphasized. "They may manage some aspects of the Linux OS but not for anything that runs on it (e.g. Oracle). You would have to go to one of Microsoft's partners, e.g. Quest, or competitors to address all the things not managed by Microsoft."

The way I see it, interoperability is for Microsoft a means to an end, the end being competitive gains more than customer benefits. Microsoft is the first beneficiary of its interoperability efforts. The new management tools clearly show what interoperability really means to Microsoft: increasing its footprint in heterogenous platform environments. That's going to be most important in established markets like the United States, where most companies that need servers have them already.

When there's no headroom, you knock out a ceiling.