After 114 days of change, Broadcom CEO acknowledges VMware-related "unease"
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
Looking at the current CNCF landscape, majority of the graduated projects have huge backing from single corps - promoted with the open source labelling.
i.e. argo by Intuit, Cilium by Cisco, SPIFFE/SPIRE by VMware/HPE
The main conundrum is the sheer cost of maintaining dotnet and its surrounding infrastructure, and the teams to keep it moving forward fast.
But should unthinkable happen, it is MIT licensed so one or more companies can just carry on with their fork or maybe even transfer existing org/repos to some newly formed foundation.
Now I understand there's little chance microsoft kills it, but I would assume people would have thought that of their perpetual licenses or plans for VMWare, they maybe thought they're not going to kill their clients, they're not going to kill sales partners because XYY, the truth is, there are good technologies very dependent on corporations deciding their directions, but those technologies aren't that level better than open ones to justify the risk
No, it doesn’t seem to be the case. And C# mostly does not need multiple back-end frameworks because the out of box option (which is just a part of dotnet foundation ecosystem of repositories) provides the best performance out of all alternatives like Servicestack. This does not mean someone won’t implement another one in the future to sacrifice even more ASP.NET Core style features to minimize the overhead even further or to address specialized scenarios.
VMWare by comparison is hot garbage. Want to migrate a VM? thats a fee. Want to clone a VM? thats a fee. need a way to configure more than one hypervisors networks at a time? thats a fee. want iSCSI? you've gotta dedicate a full network port to the traffic and cant converge it with the existing trunk. need ARM? tough shit. want support? good luck, if youre calling VMWare you are truly desperate, and some of those 2800 people cut from the rank and file probably had byzantine ESX style answers for you.
Smaller firms with a few VMs here and here could probably lift and shift into another platform super easily.
-
For the bigger firms with large on-prem investments is where the vendor lock-in is the most difficult. Take two parts of VMWare:
- NSX-T ([1]): The SDN and networking overlay component of VMware. It provides overlay networking and micro-segmentation (like your AWS VPCs, etc.), as well as service insertion for firewalls, etc. Pretty much nothing competes in this market for on-prem that's actually integrated with the hypervisor.
- vRA ([2]): Does all your infrastructure automation, monitoring, and optimization. Again, it's actually integrated with the hypervisor.
Not at all part of the hypervisor, but components that are part of virtualization infrastructure you just can't go without.
-
Now, I'm sure you could argue that there's other systems you could fit in here, or tooling that exists that solves these problems - won't argue with that. But the big part is integration - there's basically nothing that you can buy off the shelf that does all of this under one roof that doesn't become some cobbled mess of poorly-integrated tools.
Is VMware perfect? By no means. But at the end of the day, most companies want 1) something that works, and 2) someone to call if it breaks. Broadcom knows this - hence why they placed a bet that companies too deep into it couldn't shift off quickly enough - and I fear they've betted correctly.
The closest would maybe be OpenStack? Who knows where things will end up in the next few years!
[1] https://docs.vmware.com/en/VMware-NSX/index.html [2] https://docs.vmware.com/en/vRealize-Automation/index.html