Paraphrased, they are saying LXD is more suited to running VMs or containers and not specifically microservices. It's missing sophisticated cross-container networking, centralized storage management, etc.

So they are pitching a "simpler than K8S, more complicated than LXD" layer on top of LXD for that purpose.

I suppose it also would compete with Proxmox, which is a somewhat different space than K8S. But other things it adds, like the web ui, RBAC, etc...put it in that space also.

I agree, but as I said in the article, the first stage of the demo failed, and after some frantic attempts to tear down and rebuild the cluster, they gave up, moved on to later stage of the demo, and then came back to it.

Which is why it's incoherent and doesn't fit together.

Whether that's true or not, given the current circumstances of VMware I think "basically VMware but without Hock Tan swallowing it whole" is a compelling enough pitch to merit serious interest.

It's free. The free tier of VMware doesn't offer any redundancy at all.