WingNews logo WingNews
top | item 45635940

Ask HN: What are people doing to get off of VMware?

196 points| jwithington | 4 months ago

In certain large industries it feels like there's more urgency to migrate off of VMware than there is to do genAI stuff.

Do others sense this? If so, what options do you see for folks to keep their servers but move off of VMware? Is it all RedHat?

167 comments

order

natebc|4 months ago

Our 5 year ELA for VMware went from 1.5M USD to 12M USD. I work in Higher ed.

Our Hyper-V environment came online a few months ago. It was already included with our ELA with Microsoft so we were able to splash out a bit for some higher tier support.

Granted, we have a separate team working on "genAI stuff."

We started converting virtual machines about 3 weeks ago and we've gotten through ~500 of about 3500 or so.

Our grant based HPC environment is just moving back to bare metal. The VM conversion is just for ad-hoc HPC and then all of our general infrastructure. Some of our larger application servers (SAP Hana) are possibly staying on VMWare if SAP won't support them on Hyper-V.

This summer sucked big time but we'll make it.

INTPenis|4 months ago

This is a hot topic among some of my nerdier SME friends, and our conclusion is that the major players are HPE and Nutanix. At least from our perspective over here in Sweden.

HPE did a big brain move to support multiple hypervisor backends with their own frontend. The only way to go forward imho.

I'm using Proxmox at my current $dayjob, and we're quite happy with it. I come from a big VMware shop and I think most businesses could easily replace VMware with Proxmox.

I think Proxmox should just launch an Enterprise contract, regardless of the cost, just have one. Because right now I think the main obstacle halting adoption is their lack of any Enterprise SLA.

On a personal level I would love to see KubeVirt, or Openshift with KubeVirt, take over more. It just seems like a genius move to use the already established APIs of kubernetes with a hypervisor runtime.

sgt|4 months ago

Proxmox is about to miss their window of opportunity here. They are uniquely positioned to take on VMWare, but their outfit seems like a fairly tiny and conservative company with zero ambition to take on the world, so to speak.

grimblee|4 months ago

I proposed that my job move to Openshift on bare metal but there was some pushback because of missing functionnalities ?

In the end we're going with hpe.

jwithington|4 months ago

Yes, I'd think Openshift with Kubevirt would be positioned to move in. Lots of Openshift in some of the sectors I've worked with so seems like a natural expansion.

I forgot about MSFT's ability to bundle Hyper-V though which seems to come up in this thread a lot.

Love the username.

eppp|4 months ago

The lack of support for SANs and ISCSI really bothers me. I like the way this style of setup works, I would like to keep doing it.

sokoloff|4 months ago

Broadcom turned up the heat on our pot fast enough that we’re evacuating over to proxmox. I and several others in IT had run it at home for a while, so when Broadcom made the definite losses to continue on VMWare far higher than the likely losses from any migration outage, it became a no-brainer to migrate.

Migrating part of the farm and A/B testing shows good results and we’ll be able to complete it in-place before the next pizzo payment to Broadcom is due.

Thanks for the nudge, Broadcom! As far as I’m concerned, Broadcom and Oracle are tied for first on my “do not voluntarily do business with” list. Equaling Oracle in this way is a feat…

bluGill|4 months ago

I place Broadcom higher. At least Oracle seems to want customers that pay. I can't find evidence that of Broadcom wanting customers.

tracker1|4 months ago

I'd throw IBM in that list as well... Unless you literally have money to burn, I've avoided Oracle and IBM for decades.

gnopgnip|4 months ago

I work for an MSP, mostly with small to medium companies. Licensing costs went up a ton when broadcom acquired vmware. They went up a ton more this year with minimum core counts, current licensing costs are roughly $20k a year minimum. They might hike the price again, even medium businesses that see some value in avoiding an expensive migration want to avoid this uncertainty. Basically they don't want to deal with small and medium sized businesses. I'm sure large businesses are facing price hikes too but I don't have experience with that.

If you are on a perpetual license you can put the management vlan on a network not connected to the internet if it wasn't already and realistically this buys a few years. You will not be able to patch, eventually auditors will not accept that. For the rest not on perpetual licensing, when the licensing expires you will not be able to power on machines, if they reboot they stay off.

About half of clients we are migrating to hyper-v. Most are already running windows servers. There are some differences but hyperv covers the important features and the licensing is basically already included. Beeam makes the virtual to virtual move a lot easier, this is what most of our customers use for backups

For a good chunk they are migrating to azure or another hosted environment. If you don't have a main office with a file server or some more demanding line of business apps this is a pretty easy move.

A few are going to nutanix. Or more of expanding nutanix.

anakaine|4 months ago

My organisation went down the Nutanix path with about 1/4 of the DC about 18 months ago. They're now just finalising the move away feom Nutanix. From a server and dev admin point of view we had really odd VM behaviour, poorer than expected process performance, and random instability that just couldn't be resolved. I believe other system owners had similar and that the VM admins had their own range of oddities to track down. Something behind the scenes was the catalyst for change away in a short period of time.

cookiengineer|4 months ago

Check out libvirtd based stacks, because that's what's supported by upstream Linux.

Some shops here migrate to proxmox as a UI because of certification requirements, but I migrated some of my customers to cockpit dashboard, and some to kubernetes. It's always a matter of scale and provisioning requirements.

Cockpit is my favorite so far because it's easy to setup, but its focus isn't cluster scale, which is what most larger companies need. You have to setup basically two cockpit variants: the webui and lots of cockpit server daemons (aka libvirtd on remote machines). The webui then uses SSH to login to other machines to manage them (e.g. via the known_hosts file on the webui server). [3]

Proxmox is pretty old and Perl, but it's doable. Usually storage clustering is a bit painful because you need something on a filesystem layer like ceph clusters.

There's also openshift but no idea if that is an IBM/RedHat lock-in as well, so the SMEs didn't want that risk.

[1] https://cockpit-project.org/

[2] https://www.proxmox.com/en/

[3] https://cockpit-project.org/guide/latest/feature-machines.ht...

throwaway270925|4 months ago

Cockpits SSH/multiple machines feature is being deprecated though unfortunately

stoitsev|4 months ago

I'm with a block storage vendor that works with a lot of companies migrating off VMware, and the diversity of KVM-based cloud management platforms we're seeing is fascinating. We have customers moving to OpenNebula, CloudStack, Proxmox, OpenStack, HP VME, Oracle Virtualization, and even some homegrown solutions. The common thread is that they're all looking for a storage backend that is not tied to a specific hypervisor and can deliver predictable high performance. The beauty of the KVM ecosystem is the freedom to choose the best tool for the job, and that extends to the storage layer. A good software-defined block storage solution should have the features (data migration, disaster recovery) and capabilities to make the transition away from VMware as smooth as possible.

erredois|4 months ago

Openstack second wind was definitelly not on my 2020s bingo card. But I agree kvm solutions have a lot of momentum.

Nux|4 months ago

Microsoft gaining the most I reckon.

Kind of sad seeing businesses getting screwed by closed source proprietary software, then making the same choices all over again.

Nutanix also seeing huge demand.

Not everyone is repeating their mistakes, with Proxmox and Xcp-ng seeing huge new level of business, as well, which is nice.

I'm part of the Apache CloudStack project and that too is seeing unparalleled levels of demand. The KVM hypervisor has sort of become the de facto choice, thanks to virt-v2v tool which can help migrate VMware guests.

tstrimple|4 months ago

I'm seeing a fucking ton of cloud migrations to Azure and AWS from VMware. Even cloud VMs are pretty cheap compared to Broadcom licensing.

ohdeardear|4 months ago

[deleted]

stego-tech|4 months ago

At PriorCo, I did a slide deck presentation of our options at the time (2023/2024) and pitched essentially three pathways: stay on VMware, move to Apache Cloudstack, or move to Nutanix. The deck was roundly ignored in favor of a lift-and-shift to AWS for remaining infrastructure.

If I were running the migration, my preferred pathway would’ve been to Apache Cloudstack. We had the expertise to pull it off, and it would’ve freed us from vendor partners. Nutanix was really only on the list purely from its technology portfolio; its lack of profitability and shifting towards SaaS for features like cost analysis meant that we’d be moving into a similarly bad situation as VMware at the time (wholly beholden to their business priorities instead of our own), which I didn’t care for.

There’s a lot of options out there, most of which are built atop either KVM/QEMU or OpenStack. Virtuozzo’s offerings impressed me, but the lack of a “comprehensive” product was a turnoff. Oxide was incredibly interesting from a simplicity and integration perspective, but the appetite wasn’t there to try a startup’s product. Microsoft and Oracle were both ruled out due to higher costs and more onerous licensing than VMware/Broadcom, while IBM/OpenShift were ruled out as our private cloud estate was 100% VMs with only ~20% of our internal products capable of containerization support.

The biggest advice I can give is to understand your workload today, and determine options accordingly. Everyone’s pitching K8s and containers, but if your estate is majority VMs, then a lot of those options just aren’t worthwhile.

ecxzw|4 months ago

Would you be considering Oxide in the future with their recent $100M Series B funding round, their recent sales to clients like Lawerence Livermore National Labs, and the recent AWS outage in mind?

MaKey|4 months ago

What's the reason for not considering Proxmox?

DiggyJohnson|4 months ago

Mostly bitching to corporate IT to make it possible to use alternative tools and workflows.

Not kidding, that’s the main blocker. We have the DevOps knowledge on our team to go to containers, prepackaged dev environments, etc. But corporate cyber tends to respond to our requests to discuss cyber policy and escalate via proper channels with “sorry that’s against policy”.

This is not my experience at one company but multiple good, name brand companies that generally do good engineering and software work.

1970-01-01|4 months ago

3rd party trust is not a joke. Why should they drop what they're doing to go and audit a new critical vendor?

KronisLV|4 months ago

> We have the DevOps knowledge on our team to go to containers, prepackaged dev environments, etc.

This is lovely to strive towards and going all in on containers (albeit not with Kubernetes) has worked out great for where I work; their resistance to the approach sucks, I'm sorry you have to deal with that. Hope it works out in the end.

anakaine|4 months ago

Im in the same boat, and it sucks. CyberSec rules the roost but have little to no care or knowledge of good DevOps, or process management considerations, so the result is tpu wind up talking to a human firewall whose response is always "no.". Organisationally we wonder why nothing improves.

awesomeusername|4 months ago

We use Proxmox.

NVidia are pushing hard in the direction of combined accelerators and ARM CPU (i.e. DGX, Thor, Jetson, etc).

Some of the upcoming hardware hits a sweet spot in terms of performance / $ / W. It's hard to ignore.

But Proxmox is ignoring ARM. Which is a big mistake IMO

mindcrash|4 months ago

Happily want to give some options:

* DIY w/ KVM/Xen

* DIY w/ OpenStack - https://www.openstack.org/

* ProxMox - https://www.proxmox.com/en/

* Paid OpenStack through one of their partners - https://www.openstack.org/marketplace/consulting/

* OpenNebula - https://opennebula.io/

* Nutanix - https://www.nutanix.com/

If you want a solution that "just works", is simple to manage and can even extend to public cloud infrastructure when needed I can really, really recommend Nutanix. Migrating from VMWare is also really simple, they have a tool which makes that very easy. Do note that they use a heavily modified KVM as hypervisor.

neoCrimeLabs|4 months ago

We're driving as many apps as possible to containers, and replacing most of our virtual infrastructure with Talos Linux [1] which is a reasonably hardened OS dedicated to Kubernetes hosting. I strongly recommend using the terraform provider to help manage at scale. The docs seem a little sparse for beginners, but if you already know kubernetes concepts, it's pretty easy to pick up. If you know flux style gitups talhelper+sops is far better than naked talosctl. We're also trying to migrate off of IAAS provided kubernetes and migrate to talos within instances. It's an effort to reduce dependency on specific IAAS while also minimizing number of technologies we need to support.

We're driving anything that cannot be containerized to lift and shift to IAAS and forcing the app owners to pay for it out of their budget as motivation to modernize. They have to explain to the board why their spending increased and they are still on legacy.

- [1] - https://www.talos.dev/

ohdeardear|4 months ago

[deleted]

mmazurki|4 months ago

Seeing a lot of Nutanix especially for VDI/Citrix heavy workloads or typical 3-tier applications. HP VME is also becoming a thing as an almost drop-in and VERY cost effective alternative to VMWare. In telco Openstack is still king AFAIK.

xd1936|4 months ago

Non-Profit Liberal Arts Higher Ed here. Trying to move to the Azure Hybrid Cloud as fast as possible. Going to have to eat one more year of 170% price hike in our current VMware contract.

Heard from a peer school on the east coast that had to sign a 600% hike in their most recent contract. Absolutely evil.

jesterson|4 months ago

I would not call it evil. Orgs are _voluntarily_ making the choice to lock in for expensive useless proprietary software by either being stupid or - actually evil - receiving kickbacks from those proprietary companies.

Every manager signing off the contract with vendor lock in should understand possible repercussions. Its not a rocket science. Yep they will screw you along the way with prices. Yea, that sales rep saying they won't is a lying bastard that can't care ess about your business the moment your pen raised from your signature in contract.

But people still believe in tales aren't they

pickle-wizard|4 months ago

In my sphere most companies are going to either Hyper-V or the cloud. Hyper-V kinda won by default as a lot of orgs already had Windows Server licenses.

jwithington|4 months ago

hard to beat the MSFT bundle

ofrzeta|4 months ago

Red Hat is offering OpenShift virtualization, which is Kubernetes with Kubevirt. So some people might just use Kubernetes with Kubevirt.

There's also Harvester "open source hyperconverged infrastructure" https://harvesterhci.io/

Or some Xen spinoff like https://xcp-ng.org/

Smaller shops are migrating to Proxmox.

firesteelrain|4 months ago

I don’t really consider OpenShift in the same category. VMWare and its enabling software such as vSphere and vCenter are in another category than OpenShift to the point that there is a symbiotic relationship between VMWare and Dell in the corporate/enterprise setting

al_borland|4 months ago

Red Hat has an implementation of OpenStack, which is more of a VMware replacement than OpenShift is.

more_corn|4 months ago

Do not ever use openshift

orev|4 months ago

I find that regular libvirt/qemu with virt-manager or cockpit front-end on RHEL/Alma/Rocky is perfectly fine for plenty of situations.

vaxman|4 months ago

For Mac/Linux/Hybrid-Cloud shops -> "Incus" (can also host macOS and Windows instances) for most work and "Firecracker" for specialized appliances.

For Windows shops (you sick bstrds :D) -> Hyper-V

RE: Proxmox, not a hater, but errtime I read that name, I picture "Mike Myers Dieter". Seriously tho, the best they could do for themselves would be to make ProxMox into a UI for the Incus REST API (and their legacy backend) then repackage their enterprise offerings as add-ons for Incus (for email, DRS, etc.) BTW, the first person to release an "I use this exclusively everyday for months before releasing it on Github" gesture-controlled WebGL/Audio and WebXR based UX with agentic Incus REST API sensor analysis and settings controls, will win a valuable prize.

https://aws.plainenglish.io/why-even-google-is-rethinking-ku...

-> Mind earlier warnings that many people in the Industry these days tend to follow each other around on forums creating a sort of "feedback loop" so bad trends (eg, PHP) takeover the game. <cue https://youtu.be/uPWQfAv_qBQ>

rcarmo|4 months ago

I'm seeing a bit of everything: renegotiating (which Broadcom doesn't really do), optimizing and consolidating hosts (to lower costs), public cloud migration (which is why I see the most given my line of work, but may not represent everything), forays into other hypervisors, etc.

Proxmox may come to many an HN visitor's mind (and I use it myself extensively, all my home services run on it), but it actually doesn't have a lot of enterprise features and isn't a drop-in replacement.

esseph|4 months ago

This was question at a very very very slow moving org and industry I was at until about a year ago.

They went to Nutanix right before the broadcom acquisition and never looked back.

They were much happier, and HCI was very nice for k8s nodes.

Mave83|4 months ago

croit.io, provides 24*7 enterprise support as a Proxmox Gold partner with a follow the sun support team.

tdr2d|4 months ago

Hi, im a presales engineer for OVHcloud, a cloud provider. OVH is a "pinacle" VMware partner, we are a huge reseller of VMware licenses, and were able to secure a 3-5 years contract with broadcom with only 5 to 15% of price increase.

Of course, the clients I talk with are mostly interested in moving to the cloud or are already in the cloud, so it won't be applicable to you if you'd stay on-prem. I wanted to share my experience.

For some clients, change of technology would be more expensive than paying a bit more to VMware. You'd have to re-train half your IT department, and the migration could be long, risky and complexe. So in this case, a lift and shift move-to-cloud can be competitive, and frankly a serious option.

I see a lot of projects with Nutanix, but you'd be surprise of the price, which is almost the same as VMware. Nutanix comes with way more features than vanilla vsphere which explains the cost increase. You'd have NSX and vSAN packaged, plus replication features. Nutanix offers a great alternative. Actually, OVH proposes Nutanix too, so we can be agnostic and have a sort of leverage over Broadcom.

Some clients are ok to move to public cloud (equivalent AWS/Azure..). The smaller the infra the easier it is. It can be very cheap at OVH. Also it's great if you do containers because of the universal nature of them, they are easy to migrate. However, If the client has a lot of Windows Server, the cost is actually higher (at OVH the price of the Windows Server Licence is higher than at Azure..) because we cannot leverage the Windows Datacenter licenses

The cheapest viable option is to go to Proxmox on Baremetal servers. The features are close to a standard vSphere environnement. The lack of enterprise support is the thing that stops most clients to do this move.

anakaine|4 months ago

All good points, except perhaps the cost of the move. With VMWare licences anecdotallty increasing ~8x, the cost of moving could well be recovered quite quickly. Organisations tend to think and react strategically, and this will mean 3-5 year (or more) financial projections for major projects. If a $1m VMWare annual bill is now $8m, over 5 years thats $5m vs $40m. A change to a $1m annually cluster isn't going to cost you $35m, so you should definitely look at changing to minimise your expenses, assuming you get the support etc that you need elsewhere.

vjvjvjvjghv|4 months ago

I use VMWare Workstation a lot for testing and it's a very good workhorse for that. I hope they won't mess that up.

yuvadam|4 months ago

Out of the loop: what's up with VMware?

nikanj|4 months ago

Bought out by Broadcom, who realized if you increase prices by 10x and lose 75% of customers, you end with more revenue and less support costs

AzN1337c0d3r|4 months ago

Bought by Broadcom, now implementing classic strategy of leveraging vendor lock-in to milk customers.

ofrzeta|4 months ago

Broadcom bought VMware and changed the pricing.

esseph|4 months ago

Imagine seeing a 300% or more cost increase for no particular reason.

lconnell962|4 months ago

I've just enjoyed the realization that I attended a meeting where our VMware support rep used "Just think about how much money using bare metal hardware is costing" as an argument to my management during that meeting after these price increases were becoming common news.

dabockster|4 months ago

Depends on what VMware product you’re using. I’m still stuck on Workstation Pro because Hyper-V takes over my computer and slows down anything virtualized that isn’t Windows.

For servers, there’s things like Proxmox that are super versatile and can be deployed to a 1U server in a few hours. And if whatever you’re virtualizing exists mostly in the application/user layer and doesn’t touch lower level APIs (eg raw TCP), Docker/Portainer is even better (no Kubernates required!).

garganzol|4 months ago

Hyper-V and Windows Server 2025. It ticks all the boxes, except being BigScaryCorp for some people.

bob1029|4 months ago

Datacenter edition will give you the right to run unlimited windows server VMs on each host. It's a really hard deal to pass up if you're mostly a Microsoft shop.

JeremyNT|4 months ago

How does one actually orchestrate this at scale? The only API is powershell, right?

s3rv3rsi7e|4 months ago

Most of the time I don't need a full VM and run inside a container via systemd-nspawn. This runs on the existing kernel instance but isolates everything nicely. Mainly use it for complex builds so they don't bork my system.

basemi|4 months ago

A major european bank is about to move everything they got on VMware to Hyper-V

SoftTalker|4 months ago

Linux. kvm or lxc.

Hire a couple of sysadmins who know their ass from a hole in the ground.

that_lurker|4 months ago

Will be interesting to see if large organizations move to Proxmox

theossuary|4 months ago

I don't think Proxmox is anywhere near ready for that sort of shift. It's interesting what a big hole in the market VMWare is leaving and nothing quite fills it. OpenStack is the closest, but way more complicated than VMWare, and doesn't work at all for smaller deployments.

OldfieldCTO|4 months ago

#1 reason people don't wholesale move off of VMW is 1 word, RISK. Too much risk to move legacy applications of enterprises without a lengthy project to move. This that do and start to, are choosing KVM variants, RH Open shift Virt, or Hyper-V. Promos would be good if it had enterprise support.

Nutanix is just as expensive and also a locked in option.

incomingpain|4 months ago

Broadcom ruined vmware for me.

Seems to me everyone is going to Proxmox, Xen, or hyperv. Honourable mention but technically apples to oranges. Kubernetes and docker.

Redhat openshift? I have never heard of anyone trying to go to it. I like how they try to mix vms and containers... but i dunno it seems to suffer from the standard red hat problem.

RagnarD|4 months ago

XCP-ng and XCP-ng Center are excellent no-cost solutions. It can't do highest end VMware functions such as the voodoo of moving a running system to a different VM with no interruptions, but it can do a lot.

owenthejumper|4 months ago

I work for a vendor covering subset of functionality from VMware.

I am seeing Nutanix the most, then Proxmox, Openshift.

For some sub products, Avi is often going to HAproxy, Aria to a combination of Terraform, Datadog (and others)

phito|4 months ago

We are moving to proxmox

Todd_B|4 months ago

A mix of Proxmox and Hyper-V. Also, Apache CloudStack using KVM.

hdgvhicv|4 months ago

Jumping into bed with another single vendor.

You dont think enterprise IT does sensible things like have multiple vendors to avoid single points of failure.

sharts|4 months ago

Unfortunately there are effectively 0 alternatives to VMware / Parallels if wanting to do MacOS within MacOS.

tiffanyh|4 months ago

What’s next best alternative (regardless of cost)?

  Virtualbox
  Parallel
  Hyper-V
Anything else? Which is best?

ikidd|4 months ago

Did you just propose Virtualbox as a replacement for ESX?

zamadatix|4 months ago

Hard to say much given we weren't given much info on how it'd be used.

E.g. Parallel's is only useful for people looking to run VMs locally on their Mac, but Hyper-V can be anything from that for a Windows PC to a full-blown headless hypervisor cluster with HA, shared volumes, replication, etc.

For several of the common categories, these are my takes:

- Traditional Enterprise: Nutanix [paid] if money is available, otherwise Hyper-V [paid] if a large Microsoft contract is already in place. If neither fit: fall through to acting like an SMB.

- SMB/Modern Mid-Sized Enterprise: Cloud [paid] only and/or Proxmox [free/paid]

- Tech Company: Doesn't matter, they'll do whatever sounds cool that year and make it work well enough

- Home Lab: Proxmox [free/paid]

- Windows PC: Hyper-V [free w/ Windows] (it's meh, but it's integrated - doubly so if you plan on using WSL on the side).

- Mac PC: Parallels [paid] if you need a GPU accelerated Windows guest, UTM [free] otherwise.

- Linux PC: QEMU+KVM [free], the choice of (optional) GUI client is up to preference.

Some extra notes by solution:

- Nutanix: Enterprises were staring to use this more and more even prior to the VMware sale. It's definitely the spiritual successor of traditional VMware usage in the data center. A bit less full of themselves, for now at least, than VMware ever managed to keep themselves (IMO).

- Proxmox: Has a bit of a habit of feeling like it always ends up a little broken by the time you've used an install/cluster for 6 months, but is by far the best option for the homelabber type use case (even ignoring that it's free as a reason). It's basically like someone configured KVM with what you want to be able to just (try to) use it without thinking about what's underneath, while still having access to the underneath to un-stick it in certain situations. Also does host-native containers! I never did have the guts to pitch my company try to run anything production on a cluster, but they do have reasonably priced support plans and advanced feature tiers for that.

- Parallels: Kind of sucks for the price, but there isn't anything else on macOS with the same GPU acceleration for Windows.

- Hyper-V: I think this is mostly still around because it helps Microsoft stay sticky at companies when the yearly renewal comes up. That said, it's alright - and it's also integrated into Windows in some pretty nifty ways for local use these days.

- UTM: Fantastic QEMU client for macOS, worth giving a few bucks for even though it's free.

aborsy|4 months ago

Proxmox is a pretty solid alternative!

protocolture|4 months ago

Production: Hyper V Dev: Proxmox

ohdeardear|4 months ago

I hate virtualization with a passion, because it's just more crap that doesn't work written by people that shouldn't touch computers.

In theory, it's great. In practice, if you need to get "support" from someone else, it's not so great anymore, as all these companies have been discovering.

I would use VM technology if whoever wrote it would provide me with a contract saying that if anyone were to find just one program that would crash their VM (while not crashing a real machine) or miscompute, that I would get a billion dollars.

To answer your question: I was smart enough to never use it in the first place.

garganzol|4 months ago

The only kind of person who would say that they hate virtualization is a hardware vendor. Because of conflict of interests.

In this light, Broadcom, a hardware vendor, who buys a popular virtualization product does a "smart" move - it supposedly eliminates the very thing that eats away their profits. But it only looks smart to the vendor itself. For everyone else, the move looks unprofessional and incompetent.

opengrass|4 months ago

Docker or podman your stuff? There's an image of every OS.

NoUseForANick|4 months ago

Virtualization is a 20 years old tech. Quit it.

linksnapzz|4 months ago

Rather a lot older than that.

But, even if you restrict it to 'x86 virtualization', the alternative for the current crop of 'enterprise' OS environments is ...server sprawl. I'm a big fan of discrete hw for some things, but it can be a hard sell for everything.

kjs3|4 months ago

If you're so ignorant of the space you think virtualization is 20 years old, you're too ignorant to make proclamations about what anyone else should do.

heavyset_go|4 months ago

Give a few years and every process will be virtualized on all major operating systems.