Response to InfoWorld's Choices on 2007's Top Technology

Response to InfoWorld's Choices on 2007's Top Technology

Summary: First of all, I must note for the record that InfoWorld has never given me an award as being top in any category. I'm thankful that they've spared their readers that pain.


First of all, I must note for the record that InfoWorld has never given me an award as being top in any category. I'm thankful that they've spared their readers that pain. Now that I've gotten that over with, I'd like to comment on an article I recently read over at InfoWorld.

David Marshall, a well known comentator on the virtualization arena and quite an interesting person, comments on his choices of the best technology from 2007. Although several fine products are mentioned, they seem to be the obvious choices because they offered technology that certainly was good enough to statisfy the needs of many organizations and were both highly and successfully publicized by their developers.

What about the technology that was less highly publicized but, very interesting nevertheless? I suspect that the products that were easiest to defend were selected due to the limited space allowed for such discussions. The products that are easiest to defend may not be the best products for any given organization to deploy.

In 2007, I spoke with nearly 100 different companies, each of which offered something interesting that was worthy of note.

  • ClearCube and Pano Technologies are offering interesting tools for those interested in access virtualization.
  • Endeavors Technologies, LANDesk, Thinstall, DataSynapse and several others are focused on application virtualization.
  • In the realm of processing virtualization, companies such as Virtual Iron, Qumranet and several others come to mind. (VMware and Parallels were already mentioned in the article)
  • Management of virtualized environments was a hotbed of activity last year. Cassatt, Embotics, Fortisphere, Racemi, Scalent Systems and VMLogix all presented interesting technology.
  • Catbird is offering an interesting approach to securing virtual environments

Although I could go on and on about what was interesting and what was not, I think I've made my point that picking out a few of the front runners and leaving out all of the others does a disservice to the industry in some ways. Just because a product is popular does not also indicate that it is the best technology or even that it would be best for any given organization's needs.

What would your choice be for the top virtualization technology be? What criteria would you use to select the best?

Topics: Virtualization, CXO, Hardware, Storage


Daniel Kusnetzky, a reformed software engineer and product manager, founded Kusnetzky Group LLC in 2006. He's literally written the book on virtualization and often comments on cloud computing, mobility and systems software. In his spare time, he's also the managing partner of Lux Sonus LLC, an investment firm.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Clarification

    Hi Dan, with all the things I've been called over the years, I appreciate you selecting "interesting person". ;) And I'm sure your award is in the mail... somewhere.

    Thanks for commenting on my Virtualization Report article. If you don't mind, I'd like to clarify something though. You said that David Marshall "comments on his choices of the best technology from 2007."

    In fact, that isn't accurate. What I did was report on IDG's InfoWorld 2008 Technology of the Year awards. As I wrote:

    "IDG's InfoWorld recently announced the recipients of its 2008 Technology of the Year honors, recognizing 45 products across 9 general categories. The selection process was handled by InfoWorld Test Center editors and reviewers."

    I had nothing to do with the criteria, the selection, the testing or reviewing. I am not a Test Center editor nor a Test Center Reviewer. Again, I just reported the news of the award and discussed the virtualization angle of the award. In fact, the award didn't have a "virtualization" category, rather it was a platform category that happened to have virtualization companies win, so I reported on them (I didn't cover the other 42 winners).

    I don't know all the criteria other than what was reported, such as:

    "The annual awards identify the best and most innovative products on the IT landscape and the winners are drawn from all of the products that have gone through the testing process during the past year, with the final selections made by InfoWorld's Test Center staff."

    But I do agree with you, there is a wide variety of virtualization related companies out there, many of which are quite awesome and interesting. And I typically cover those in my Report as do you. I've been using many of these technologies for nearly a decade, and I really enjoy seeing new companies pop up with creative and innovative technologies in the virtualization space.

    As to the comment about picking out a few front runners and leaving others out being a disservice to the industry, I suppose that would be said about any award, wouldn't it? I wouldn't call it a disservice though, perhaps unfortunate in some cases.

    All the "Top 10" or "Top 5" articles or awards for this or that leave someone out. You yourself have spoken with over 100 companies... they can't all win. Only in the pee-wee league does everyone get a trophy. :)

    Keep up the great work spreading the word. We need more people in 2008 to drink the kool-aid of virtualization and realize the benefits. Only 94% of x86 servers to go!

    • Thanks for the clarification

      I appreciate the quick comment. By the way, I value my Pee Wee league trophies...

      Since the needs of each organization differ, each organization really needs to evaluate what's available for itself. I remember an operating system that Digital Equipment Corporation developed for PDP-11 minicomputers that was to be a good transaction processing system. a 15-bit minicomputer really couldn't drag that heavy sled as well as newer, 32-bit technology could.

      Digital tried to move folks from that operating system to VAX/VMS, a much better platform for that type of activity, and was largely successful in that task. A very few organizations, however, didn't want to move. The 16-bit operating system did exactly what they wanted and so, they wouldn't move. In the end, Digital maintained that very, very low volume operating system for quite a number of years.

      In today's world, the vendor would have simply dropped support and forced these organizations to move. As I understand it, the company supported a very few PDP-1s for quite a number of years as well.

      Maybe that commitment to customer support and customer satisfaction is part of the reason it's now only living in the the memory of those who were part of the industry at that time...

      Dan K
      • Sorry, that's 16-bit

        My flying fingers flew onto the wrong keys in my last post. Sorry 'bout that.