locked
Platform solutions vs. Silos or "best of breed" RRS feed

  • General discussion

  • Just for general discussion.

    I used to think "best of breed" was the best way to approach IT strategy, but over the years I've seen what that does to an IT environment.  I'm wondering who amongst you might see a platform approach as a better way of doing things, but are faced with convincing others who believe in "best of breed."  Conversely are you in a shop where you are hampered by a platform and would like to move to a "best of breed" solution?

    I've been doing webcasts about platforms and truly believe they are a better way of doing things, but would love to hear a contrarian point.

    Thoughts? 
    Thursday, February 19, 2009 11:49 PM

All replies

  • I am not convinced that one way or the other is better.  Perhaps a combination of the two..  there are surely times when a platform solution as a whole will fit better than a quick download of a single solution and vice versa.

    As an example, In my IT Shop, we run Windows Server Update Services and use that for the primary method of update.  The platform works very well in most cases.  However I also make use of Languard 9 for searching out and correcting issues on the fly and occasionally will connect right into Windows Update for a fix or quick download.

    I am not sure solely relying on one strategy or another is the best way to go... but I would be interested to see the thoughts of others.

    Derek Schauland, MCSE | 2008 Microsoft MVP | Technology Addict
    Friday, February 20, 2009 6:30 PM
  • Just to play devil's advocate, why Languard and not SCCM (that would align more directly in a Microsoft environment)?  Certainly SCCM has the same if not more functionality? 

    No, not pitching SCCM over Languard (I'm actually an old school NetIQ guy myself), but curioius as to "how" that decision gets made in other environments.  Is it purely cost?  Is it feature set?  Other?

    For us we went NetIQ because, at the time, SCCM didn't exist.  Once it was released and massaged to where it is we moved to it.  But it wasn't for the reason of platform alignment, it was purely a price/performance thing (right answer, wrong reason).

    I agree that a "pure" platform environment will never happen simply as a result of LOB applications, but for your basic infrastructure I've not encountered a compelling reason to not be platform aligned (now that I'm a reformed "best of breed" guy).  Doesn't mean there isn't one, and certainly there are an infinate number of one-off reasons, but systemically I just can't come up with anything tangible.

    It'll be interesting to see if anyone else can weigh in.

    Shameless plug: If you want my full platform schpeal you can go to (http://blog.platformvision.com/author/EricZinn.aspx) and beat me up there!

    Friday, February 20, 2009 6:50 PM
  • At the time of purchase the reason was simple... cost of goods.  SCCM is a great product, but is a bit too spendy for my current needs.  I will always be on the look out for something to test to see if there is a better way to peel the proverbial apple and if that product comes along great.

    I only have about 50 users and the cost for Languard and its "runs on a laptop all in one" along with a very low TCO it works for now.

    Derek Schauland, MCSE | 2008 Microsoft MVP | Technology Addict
    Friday, February 20, 2009 6:59 PM
  • *nods knowingly*

    Definately can be spendy!

    I've run in to Languard in the field quite a bit and when doing assessments generally give folks a thumbs up if they use it for monitoring/management (and users seem to generally like the product).  The problem I've seen is when an environment grows to be very large it starts to get shakey (I've not used it personally, but the folks I've worked with report this.)

    So, how big would your environment have to be before you started to look at the available solutions?  I've always thought that 100+ servers and 1k clients was probably a good time to start keeping your eyes open for different management solutions then every year take a look around and see if that decision still makes sense. 
    Friday, February 20, 2009 7:07 PM
  • Just to play devil's advocate, why Languard and not SCCM (that would align more directly in a Microsoft environment)?  Certainly SCCM has the same if not more functionality? 

    No, not pitching SCCM over Languard (I'm actually an old school NetIQ guy myself), but curioius as to "how" that decision gets made in other environments.  Is it purely cost?  Is it feature set?  Other?

    For us we went NetIQ because, at the time, SCCM didn't exist.  Once it was released and massaged to where it is we moved to it.  But it wasn't for the reason of platform alignment, it was purely a price/performance thing (right answer, wrong reason).

    I agree that a "pure" platform environment will never happen simply as a result of LOB applications, but for your basic infrastructure I've not encountered a compelling reason to not be platform aligned (now that I'm a reformed "best of breed" guy).  Doesn't mean there isn't one, and certainly there are an infinate number of one-off reasons, but systemically I just can't come up with anything tangible.

    It'll be interesting to see if anyone else can weigh in.

    Shameless plug: If you want my full platform schpeal you can go to ( http://blog.platformvision.com/author/EricZinn.aspx ) and beat me up there!

    SCCM is a compex solution. Langaurd is simple in comparision. It depends on your environment what is best.

    Andrew Sword, MVP
    Thursday, April 2, 2009 11:40 AM