274
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2023
274 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
59670 readers
2433 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Since they already deal with a fair few of VMware's customers themselves, I'd say they probably bought VMW to bolster it's software offerings. They seem to be wanting to get rid of a lot of the staff there, so customers tend to build relationships with their vendors, and burning those bridges ain't going to help there.
VMware is effectively a monopoly on entreprise virtualization. What else are the costumers going to pick?
HyperV is a joke, promox is amazing but it's free software, and every other relevant provider is just a layer on top of VMware.
I don’t do virtualization at the enterprise level but why wouldn’t enterprise use KVM? Does VMWare have any advantage over it?
VMware has the massive advantage that all the money you're throwing at them gives you support. Yes, communities can and do offer similar if not better support than paid offerings but tell that to the people who decide what software you're buying :)
Aside from the fact that it runs on Windows, what makes HyperV so bad?
I've used it a bunch and it seems fine save for some weird quirks with OSs older than 2012 R2
We have several big clusters built on mixed virtual and bare metal. I would prefer our system engineer to manually build on virtualbox before even touching hyper-v (which we clearly don't!). For some political reasons our IT forced us to test to build a solution on hyper-v (cost saving on some non critical infrastructure proposed by some very non-tecnical people), I still have nightmares. I am not even the person who had to do it in practice.
It is long to explain it here, just give it a try. Windows server and all releted solutions are simply bad for real workloads. Who use it on server is just a company who doesn't need to be productive on the IT side. Their core business is not tech related and they don't care other than getting cheap sys admins
Well, I mean, that. It's very capable but Microsoft gimps it by bundling it with windows server. The fact you have to use RDP to administer it is itself a non-starter.
You don't need to use RDP though. In fact, MS really wants you to use remote powershell or admin center.
Although you could also use whatever 3rd party remote tools you want because you're just running Windows Server
Every shop I’ve been in that thought they needed VMware would have been just fine on HyperV.
It’s just name recognition.
You've not seen a wide variety of "shops" then, clearly.
I have a bit of insider knowledge on this, and you'd be surprised at how demented a CIO can be at getting away from a company that has pissed them off. VMware is no exception, and I personally know of 2 companies, which are top 5 in the world in their field, that have been exploring alternatives to VMware. The internal culture at VMW has been one of upping prices to match what broadcom will want for almost a year, and it's causing clients to go elsewhere. Companies with an effective monopoly can still fuck it all up.
There’s also Nutanix.
Citrix has xenserver. It's not bad at all.