[HN Gopher] VMware is now part of Broadcom
___________________________________________________________________
VMware is now part of Broadcom
Author : tonoto
Score : 153 points
Date : 2023-11-22 15:01 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.broadcom.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.broadcom.com)
| thaanpaa wrote:
| That's an interesting development. Since the ransomware outbreak
| earlier this year, there has been an increase in security
| concerns about VMware. I've heard more complaints about the
| lateness of security patches and the difficulties people have had
| installing them, etc. I'm curious if this has anything to do with
| that.
| brohoolio wrote:
| vCenter is a huge target. VMware docs differ from the the
| Crowdstrike recommendations, with security vendors saying
| basically to lock it down to the 9th degree or suffer the
| consequences.
| convolvatron wrote:
| this has been in the pipe for more than a year
| saltminer wrote:
| We are already seeing the squeeze from this. We have recently
| been informed they are dropping their academic list pricing
| entirely, which will cause many institutions to pay double or
| even triple what they do now. As a result, several major
| universities (specifically the Big Ten but I'm sure many others
| are as well) are looking into alternatives to reduce license
| costs ahead of next year's contract negotiations.
|
| Source: Someone higher up in my department.
| rf15 wrote:
| Even by the standards of blind corp greed, that's a bad move -
| you want people to know your platform when they're done
| studying, so they can advocate for it in their jobs. Why would
| you destroy this revenue stream? Unless they have no longterm
| vision for VMware and just want to bleed it dry as quickly as
| possible.
| warriormonk5 wrote:
| Yeah that's the idea. They hold corporations hostage that are
| slow to move and increase prices.
| rrdharan wrote:
| And it's entirely plausible they make enough money from
| that to buy the next VMware in another decade or so to
| repeat the cycle. Sustainable bottom feeding as a strategy.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| Broadcom looks at Orcale and says "Can I have some of that
| business model please"...
|
| They exist on legacy vendor lockin, and will milk customers
| until there is nothing left, which will take decades or more
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Any student can download and use Oracle DBs and most other
| products for free legally right from Oracle's sites. This
| suggests that even Oracle understands how important this
| pipeline is.
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| But to me, Oracle is the canonical example of getting nerds
| while they're young.
|
| In university, I had access to Oracle databases, Oracle
| manuals, Oracle Linux, etc. Not through some special
| university approved lab set up - I could just go and
| download them. Even their acquired software like PeopleSoft
| etc.
|
| I had NONE of that for DB2 or AIX, for example.
|
| And their respective market share, I believe based on no
| evidence but strong belief, belies that strategy.
|
| (disclaimer, I guess - I work for IBM, but ironically as an
| Oracle consultant... the early access really _did_ work :-)
| phpisthebest wrote:
| Many people have talked about this...
|
| People do know that oracle has ALOT more software then
| their DB right?
|
| I mean their DB is the least vendor lockin thing they
| sell.....
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > you want people to know your platform when they're done
| studying, so they can advocate for it in their jobs. Why
| would you destroy this revenue stream?
|
| That was how Adobe ran for a looooong time, up until and
| including CS6. They didn't give a f..k about piracy beyond
| something that could trivially be circumvented by a keygen
| and a few well-placed /etc/hosts entries, and that was what
| made them the utterly dominant power in anything creative -
| people were used to _years_ of working with Photoshop (a
| friend of mine started with photography at age 13!), and so
| they demanded from employers that they use Photoshop.
| Incidentally, that also was what kept Apple afloat before the
| iPod /iPhone days - Adobe stuff just worked fine on Apple
| hardware but was a nightmare on Windows, so people also
| demanded Macs for their work.
|
| The advent of CC came once Adobe had achieved that lock-in
| and started milking its customers for all they were worth,
| and additionally they opened up a load of legitimate
| customers as well who didn't feel like dropping a few grand
| on Adobe stuff but who cares about 50$ a month?
| dangerboysteve wrote:
| XCP-NG
| smegsicle wrote:
| i thought i heard kvm was winning, is there still a good
| reason to go with xen?
| dangerboysteve wrote:
| All are good choices.
| stock_toaster wrote:
| or proxmox
| depereo wrote:
| They're pulling entirely out of some countries, too, so here in
| New Zealand they're apparently going to send comms on the 27th,
| have a seven day 'consultation' and then probably give everyone
| the date they don't have a job.
| brohoolio wrote:
| VMware is notorious for continuously changing SKUs and
| licensing models to make things more expensive. I would suspect
| that Broadcom will continue putting the squeeze on customers.
| If hyper-V (or whatever it's named now) was a viable
| alternative, I suspect you'd see tons of folks fleeing VMware.
| baq wrote:
| Azure runs on basically hyper-v I hear (which would make
| sense, right?), so it can't be _that_ bad?
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| There's bad tech, there's bad user/admin experience, and
| there's bad licensing/costs. They might just mean that ex.
| the costs are awful, which I expect Azure wouldn't care
| about. (Disclaimer: I haven't used hyper-v, I don't know if
| any of these apply)
| csydas wrote:
| HyperV has been overlooked by Microsoft for awhile in favor
| of Azure. You can get a basic HyperV host up and running
| pretty easily (even for free with the Core edition), but I
| would not call it great. My experience with HyperV is not a
| pleasant one as it struggles a lot and the error messages
| are often extremely cryptic. Similarly, there are some
| pretty outstanding bugs that existed for years that
| Microsoft didn't bother to fix -- for example, since HyperV
| 2019, there has been an impactful RCT bug+ that can be
| triggered if you upgraded your HyperV hosts in a specific
| path (2016-2019) and any backup solution used HyperV's RCT.
| The result of the bug is extremely poor performance on any
| VM using RCT. Supposedly there was a patch last or this
| month that addressed it, but I've not heard any positive
| news from clients about this patch. Nevermind that Windows
| updates have frequently broken core HyperV functionality
| (as recent as December 2022 there were bugs where you
| couldn't start Virtual Machines or even create new ones due
| to bad Windows updates)
|
| From my perspective, Microsoft doesn't want to deal with
| HyperV anymore, they want your machines up on Azure. I'd
| actively advise against HyperV simply because I don't see
| that Microsoft cares about on-premises.
|
| + RCT == Changed Block Tracking for HyperV, basically
| faster backups by allowing the backup application to know
| exactly which blocks of the virtual disks have changed
| since the last backup and the backup application can do
| fast incrementals via this means.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| So ... for the corp/academic crowd, what is it VMWare does that
| VirtualBox doesn't do?
|
| I don't understand orgs that deal with companies with a
| loooooonnnnnngggggg history of predatory pricing and sales
| shenanigans and not have active mitigation plans.
|
| Who has Oracle that isn't actively planning going to Postgres
| or MariaDB? Of course I'd say the same thing for IBM in the
| 1970s, Microsoft in the 1990s, and AWS today.
|
| VMWare obviously has a lot of the same.
| tiernano wrote:
| Servers and enterprise.
| mr_mitm wrote:
| VirtualBox is also Oracle, which is why I switched to
| KVM/QEMU. But I'm also not an Enterprise user.
| jabroni_salad wrote:
| Does virtualbox have an equivalent to VCSA? Can I failover a
| datacenter with it?
|
| virtualbox is pretty capable but I only view it as equivalent
| to vmware workstation.
| X-Istence wrote:
| No, you can't failover a datacenter with VirtualBox.
| Stratoscope wrote:
| > _what is it VMWare does that VirtualBox doesn 't do?_
|
| For my specific use case, it's display responsiveness.
|
| My main work machine is a ThinkPad X1 Extreme Gen 3. Our
| development environment is Ubuntu, so when I got the machine
| our IT guy had helpfully installed Ubuntu on it.
|
| There were two major problems though. I could only get my
| AirPods to pair as headphones, not as a full headset with
| microphone. And worse, I couldn't get my triple-monitor setup
| to work at all. (The ThinkPad has a 15" 4K display, and I use
| two 24" 4K displays with it: one in landscape mode
| immediately above the ThinkPad display, another in portrait
| mode to the left.) I could only get two displays out of the
| three to come up.
|
| I did like the hardware quite a lot - I've been a huge
| ThinkPad fan for 25 years. So I immediately bought a similar
| machine for personal use. It came with Windows, and both of
| the above items worked "out of the box".
|
| So I looked at the bottom of the work machine and saw that it
| came with a Windows license. I downloaded the Windows 10 ISO
| from Lenovo and installed Windows on it, figuring I would run
| Ubuntu in a VM.
|
| I tried VirtualBox first, and it worked, but the display
| wasn't smooth. For example, I often use the Windows key +
| left/right arrow to move a window to one side of the display
| or the other. Ubuntu does a "sliding" animation when you do
| this, but it looked like it was only refreshing the display
| every tenth of a second or so.
|
| So I tried VMware and it was perfect. The display is just
| about as responsive as running Ubuntu on the bare metal -
| every transition and animation is perfectly smooth.
| wpm wrote:
| VirutalBox is a barebones type 2 hypervisor with only basic
| orchestration, backup, networking, management features, if
| any.
|
| ESXi and the VMWare products built on top of it
| (vCenter/vSphere) are not even comparable to VB, other than
| that they both can run virtual machines. vSphere can move
| running VMs between storage or compute hosts without
| interruption, can failover between storage or compute, can
| failover between networking outages (thanks to virtual
| switches and the ecosystem of hardware support around it),
| and provides a platform for additional third party add ons
| for automated backups and recovery. Not to mention easy role
| based SSO access. My entire university's infrastructure was
| virtualized on VMWare aside from a few domain controllers and
| the Netapp storage clusters it all ran on, and the equally
| large Linux/KVM infrastructure and the HPC datacenter that
| ran a bunch of other stuff for...reasons (higher ed is fun).
| And as an added bonus, desktop type 2 hypervisors like
| Workstation or Fusion integrate perfectly into it. I used to
| manage a dozen Windows and Linux VMs straight from VMWare
| Fusion on my Mac and still do at home in my little VMUG
| cluster.
|
| It's like comparing a Chevy Spark to an aircraft carrier,
| except you built an entire medium to large sized
| organization's infrastructure on top of it. You can't just
| switch overnight unless you want to stop making money for a
| while. For most orgs who can justify the already steep price,
| moving away from VMWare onto something else will mean
| multiple years long projects requiring thousands of person-
| hours to complete, redundant efforts (as the old stuff can't
| just go away until the new stuff is battle tested), on top of
| probable hardware purchases since VMWare and its demands have
| shaped on-site datacenter spend, layout, and networking for
| years.
|
| The actual VMs are the easiest part to move since they are
| just some virtual disks and a config file. It's all the other
| supporting stuff and high availability that need to
| configured and battle tested that will take forever. It's not
| something you can _plan_ to do ahead of needing to do it
| because doing so would mean doing the same job twice for
| years for a bet that you can 't just weather some higher
| costs for a year or two before you can move stuff onto
| cheaper platforms (and train/hire for expertise).
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| First, VirtualBox is an Oracle product, so I'm not sure which
| side you're advocating :)
|
| More to the point, I think VirtualBox is the equivalent,
| broadly, of VMWare Workstation/VMWare Player; which is a
| specific individual product that runs on desktop as type 2
| hypervisor and a teeny tiny bit of the broader VMWare
| ecosystem (probably neglible part of their revenue).
|
| I don't know if VirtualBox has any product or share in
| server/datacentre space? Whereas, VMware is absolutely
| positively huge. The core ESXi product, sure; but again the
| ecosystem around it, from vSPhere/vCenter to vRealize and
| Orchestrator and nsx and vSan and everything else, the
| management and automation flows are pretty well integrated
| (externally; I'm sure it's a acquired/developed mess
| internally as every other IT product ever:).
|
| It's a bit like... I don't know, "what does Window Explorer
| have that File Commander doesn't"? It's a valid question that
| has a rational answer which is useful for limited use cases,
| but it misses the very very big forest (Windows and Office
| and Azure etc) for very minor trees inside of it
|
| Hope that helps a bit?
| jbverschoor wrote:
| Migrate to proxmox.. it's great
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| Without knowing almost anything about it, I run Proximo on a
| box at home.
|
| Is it at all comparable to ESX?
|
| I kind of assumed the Proxmox was just the free and cheap and
| bare bones option.
| ThinkBeat wrote:
| In terms of features, they match on the simple / broad
| features. When it comes to scale, reliability, defined
| compatibility, and supporting tools that is a big no.
|
| I have worked on VMWare stack in previous jobs. but I run
| proxmox at home now.
|
| Free ESXi without VMware tools is somewhat harder actually.
| Still far better reliability.
| NexRebular wrote:
| or to MNX Triton or vanilla SmartOS, they're the greatest.
| linuxftw wrote:
| I think it's a pretty smart move. Educational institutions
| don't have the engineering capacity to change their datacenters
| overnight. They'll be paying the higher fees for years to come.
| boiler_up800 wrote:
| RIP CloudHealth customers.
| don-code wrote:
| Former CloudHealth early engineer here. That's nothing new.
| This started almost in tandem with the VMware acquisition - the
| company culture had been all about small- to medium-size
| customers, up through the point where due diligence started
| with VMware. We were told in no uncertain words that VMware
| would roll the red carpet out for big names, and that our
| platform needed to be ready for it. I stuck it out for about a
| year and a half, post-acquisition, where we tried to figure out
| and build a "CloudHealth Enterprise Edition" of sorts.
|
| I was surprised that VMware kept the "CloudHealth" branding as
| long as they did, - it turned out that the brand actually had
| some cache that VMware wanted to hang on to. But it was
| formally dropped last year, in favor of "VMware Aria Cloud Cost
| Control", or some equally overdescribed thing.
| xyst wrote:
| Vmware changing hands between corporate overlords like it's hot
| potato.
|
| VMware under EMC $625M acquisition lasted '04-'15
|
| Dell acquires EMC for $58B in '15 which includes previously
| acquired VMware.
|
| Now Dell is trying to balance their books and sells entire stake
| of VMWare in '21.
|
| Broadcom now picks up the pieces of VMware with acquisition
| completed this year ('23).
|
| I wonder which corporate overlord will take it over in the next
| 4-5 years.
|
| Maybe Oracle or MS will be the next to bag hold.
| tw04 wrote:
| >I wonder which corporate overlord will take it over in the
| next 4-5 years.
|
| There will be no next. Broadcom will get blood from the stone,
| rest assured. They will continue to raise maintenance and
| licensing fees until they very last customer turns off their
| last ESXi box. If you think IBM and mainframe is bad, you've
| never lived with a technology that Broadcom has acquired.
| MrDrMcCoy wrote:
| 100%. I still have contacts from when I worked there, and
| It's worse than feared. Everything is on fire and all the
| best engineering/support talent has either left or is
| leaving. Broadcom is not only raising prices, but is set to
| deliver considerably worse products. It makes me sad, because
| it was once an incredible place to work. Now I recommend that
| people avoid them like the plague.
| xyst wrote:
| Never heard of Broadcom. Are they like the private equity of
| tech? Kind of sounds like it.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| You almost certainly have Broadcom in your pocket.
| latchkey wrote:
| These bits absolutely traveled through a Broadcom NIC.
| Cyph0n wrote:
| As someone who worked on SP routers at Cisco - yes to the
| above.
| pavon wrote:
| Broadcom was essentially bought by a private equity firm
| who took the name as the name of the umbrella corporation.
|
| Before that Broadcom was (and still is) one of the larger
| communication hardware companies, making chips for cell,
| wifi, bluetooth, ethernet and ARM SoCs, along with telecom
| and data center boxes that used these chips. You almost
| certainly have their hardware in some device you own. But
| they have always had difficulty competing with Qualcomm,
| arguably in part due to anticompetitive behavior from the
| later.
|
| After the acquisition, they have been acquiring enterprise
| software companies to diversify, including CA Technologies
| (think Atlassian/Oracle of the mainframe world), Symantec,
| and now VMWare.
| megous wrote:
| Broadcom is chip maker for Raspberry Pi, among many other
| things, that's the one most people here probably will
| recognize it for.
| lokar wrote:
| They have actually been pretty open that this is the plan.
| And all the secondary products and small customers can wither
| away even faster.
| notacoward wrote:
| IBM? Try EMC or Cisco. I ended up at the former by
| acquisition; many friends ended up at the second likewise.
| AFAICT they both have _much_ worse records of turning
| acquisitions into abandonware than IBM does (not that IBM 's
| is great). Oracle and Microsoft have already been mentioned,
| but Intel deserves a place on that horrible list too. Tech
| has been full of such fat and lazy predators for a _long_
| time.
| manicennui wrote:
| Is there a single large tech company that doesn't fuck over
| the customers of their acquisitions?
| SSLy wrote:
| HPE?
| 3seashells wrote:
| Says something about value vs evaluation?
| api wrote:
| There's a market out there for a very well designed turn key
| cloud with things like managed Kubernetes and Postgres you can
| deploy on bare metal or cheap VPSes. Too bad they aren't
| looking at that. They have plenty of expertise and some of the
| software pieces already developed.
|
| I bet the problem is that they are too "enterprise" and
| couldn't price it low enough. If it were too expensive it
| wouldn't be competitive with big cloud managed offerings.
| whalesalad wrote:
| Like the village bicycle - everyone has taken it for a ride.
| bluedino wrote:
| What is the enterprise virtualization alternative?
|
| Is everyone on Hyper V already? Does Citrix still exist?
|
| Are SuSE or Red Hat offering an 'open source' alternative? Surely
| people aren't using Proxmox in production?
| navaati wrote:
| RedHat and a couple other companies will sell you OpenStack
| clusters, up to a certain size.
| mvdwoord wrote:
| Containers containers containers ;)
|
| In all seriousness, I think it is a hot topic in Enterprise
| Architecture (tm) meeting rooms ever since the merger was
| announced (I know it was in ours). But even if you find an
| alternative, you need to move, and a lot of companies have a
| lot of hard to modernize workloads which are skillfully managed
| by a lot of VMware trained personnel. No easy task.
| tlamponi wrote:
| > Surely people aren't using Proxmox in production?
|
| Lot's do, e.g., the Austrian domain registry:
|
| https://www.proxmox.com/en/about/stories/story/nic-at
|
| And many others (albeit the big ones aren't listed there, a bit
| harder to get real testimonials from them, and we do not pester
| everybody):
|
| https://www.proxmox.com/en/about/stories?f=7
| jzb wrote:
| Red Hat has/had Red Hat Virtualization but has transitioned
| that to Red Hat OpenShift Virtualization as a successor. I
| think RHV is set to phase out in 2026, and I'm not sure if
| they're currently selling new subs or just servicing existing
| customers with other folks pointed to RHOV.
|
| The oVirt community's most recent release is from last
| December, so I'm not sure whether that project is going to
| thrive now that Red Hat has largely stepped away. (Last blog
| update is also December 2022.)
| _jal wrote:
| RHV is dead, they're trying to move people over to (the much
| more expensive) OpenShift. Support for it has gotten
| predictably worse.
|
| I don't expect Ovirt to survive, the vast majority of
| development was RH.
|
| "The market" seems to "deciding" that in-house virtualization
| will be insanely expensive, and otherwise you need to rent
| OCP.
| sebazzz wrote:
| Hyper-V server is killed by Microsoft, though you can of course
| install Windows Server in Core mode and install the Hypervisor
| component.
| noinsight wrote:
| Red Hat used to offer Red Hat Virtualization (RHV) - based on
| oVirt - but they killed that at approximately the same time
| this VMware deal was announced (supposedly coincidentally).
|
| Now they bolted on virtual machines onto their OpenShift
| container platform and are pushing that.
| tonoto wrote:
| Keep the eyes open on https://oxide.computer/ - they are
| building hyperscalar racks with open source components. Using
| bhyve as the hypervisor, API as a first class citizen,
| Terraform/Opentofu, live-migration. Can't wish for much more
| akmarinov wrote:
| Did China give the go ahead?
| advisedwang wrote:
| Why would an American company need China's go-ahead to acquire
| another American company's American subsidiary?
| mvdwoord wrote:
| Because they do business in China?
|
| But yes, they have got it..
|
| https://www.streetinsider.com/dr/news.php?id=22439649&gfv=1
| xxpor wrote:
| Wouldn't be shocked if this is part of a deal Xi and Biden
| made.
| Patrick_Devine wrote:
| That is almost a certainty. That, or it was more likely
| done one or two tiers down during the APEC conference.
| Nthringas wrote:
| I think this also has something to do with the whole
| OpenAI debacle
|
| but I can only guess....
| xxpor wrote:
| See also Intel and Tower Semi
| justincormack wrote:
| Yes according to the press release yesterday, didnt give any
| details.
| gigatexal wrote:
| Everyone's VMWare licenses are gonna go up so much it'll be
| hilarious. I wonder if any large shops will jump ship to
| something else, but to what is the question.
| tw04 wrote:
| If Nutanix were smart, they'd decouple the hypervisor from
| their garbage storage layer and make hay. But they won't... too
| much pride to swallow that pill.
| MrDrMcCoy wrote:
| I'll never forgive Nutanix for murdering EdgeFS. I have not
| used any of their products, and hopefully never will.
| notacoward wrote:
| EdgeFS was pretty much a direct ripoff of multiple open-
| source projects, including one I worked on, so I'm not
| going to shed a tear for them. IIRC they even cribbed some
| of the material for manuals.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| RedHat / IBM had a huge opening to take some of this market
| share... but then for some inexplicable nonsensical move
| (common with IBM owned Redhat to be honest) they made the
| choice to just exit the Onprem Hypervisor space to focus on
| "Cloud".
|
| I know a few organizations and vendors (like Veeam) were
| looking to RHV to be a good replacement, the announcement to
| discontinue the product seems to catch everyone by surprise.
|
| I am still hoping Veeam will add support for a good 3rd option,
| proxmox, XCP, direct KVM, something...
| suprjami wrote:
| Red Hat didn't exit, they moved from RHEV to OpenShift Virt.
| Now it's kubernetes scheduling KVM VMs instead of ovirt-
| engine scheduling KVM VMs.
| linuxftw wrote:
| I can't imagine anyone would pay for such a thing. It's a
| product without a market. People want the VMWare
| experience, Red Hat just refuses to build it.
| tjscott wrote:
| Red Hat built it in RHEV (or rather, bought it from
| Qumranet and rebuilt the .net in JBoss), but struggled in
| the market. They had an arguably better product than
| VMware, and better pricing, but VMware customers were
| hard to move, and Microsoft priced Hyper-V for Windows
| guests at cheaper than free.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| >>>but VMware customers were hard to move
|
| were being the key phrase. Timing is everything, they
| Announced they were shutting down RHEV. AFTER broadcom
| announced they were buying vmware, seems like a terrible
| move in that light given that many vmware customers will
| be looking for a replacement in the next couple of
| renewal cycles.
| linuxftw wrote:
| Virtualization is a multi-billion dollar market. Even if
| you're a distant #2, it should be financially viable. The
| reality was, it was an awful product that nobody wanted.
| It could be free and it's worse than rolling your own
| solution directly on top of libvirt.
| linuxftw wrote:
| Sorry, nothing Red Hat built was ever better than VMWare
| in the virtualization space. They never built a cohesive
| product experience, they could not get out of their own
| way.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| OpenShift Virt is not RHEV with K8s add, it is a completely
| different thing, and running Traditional VM workloads on it
| is troublesome.
|
| I have no use for kubernetes, I will never use kubernetes,
| I do not want kubernetes anywhere near me.
|
| Most vmware customers I suspect have the same feelings
| depereo wrote:
| Set up a VM based workflow and it can run fairly well
| with minimal intervention for years.
|
| Set up a k8s deployment and you're fiddling with
| deprecated APIs every couple months - if you don't pay
| close attention the whole deployment spec falls apart
| within two years.
|
| The VM stuff works for the majority of companies - you
| can even sprinkle containers in fairly easily.
|
| It's still a massive if mature market that needs some
| attention and care, it's a shame it's going to get
| squeezed and abused by broadcom.
| RedShift1 wrote:
| The only reason I'm sticking with VMware ESXi is because of
| Veeam, it's like the only solidly working piece of backup
| software for VMs. Otherwise I wouldn't doubt to go with Proxmox.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| Proxmox seems to be working great, including backups
| doubled112 wrote:
| Built in backups that work are a big reason I ended up on
| Proxmox at home.
| BadBadJellyBean wrote:
| Doesn't Proxmox have a builtin backup? You could also use
| Hyper-V with Veeam.
| xoa wrote:
| Are you talking about using it AIO? It seems preferable to me
| in general to have VMs live on external storage like a NAS.
| Proxmox, KVM, Xen and I assume everything else all support
| using iSCSI at least. Then your storage layer can focus on that
| and handle all the backing up, data integrity etc itself. I
| guess that does raise cost for the same performance vs a single
| box so it'll depend on budget/needs, but it's getting pretty
| affordable with a bit of shopping to do some serious storage
| devices these days.
| spullara wrote:
| I guess this is really CA buying VMWare. This is a standard move
| by CA. Buy an entrenched software company that isn't growing but
| has a lot of customers and milk it.
| mr_toad wrote:
| > Buy an entrenched software company that isn't growing but has
| a lot of customers and milk it.
|
| This is textbook management 101, and not just for software
| companies.
| smcleod wrote:
| They deserve each other. Two makers of terrible products.
| caycep wrote:
| I guess the practical question for me is: in case Fusion goes
| abandonware, is there a viable desktop-focused hypervisor for the
| Mac other than Fusion or Parallels that runs Windows relatively
| well? I'm on Fusion, and I've always kind of viewed Parallels
| with suspicion. There's Vimy and LTM but as far as I can tell,
| they don't do Windows or GUI's all that well, since their focus
| seems to be linux and Mac OS X VMS, unless newer versions have
| improved...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-22 23:00 UTC)