[clue-talk] Vmware ESX / VI, WTF?

[David Rudder]

I have to say here that I agree with David Willson. 

ESX is a server-side product.  Not just that, but it's a cross-platform, 
server-side product.  It's just silly to make something like that that 
can't be managed from a variety of platforms.  My product, Reliable 
Response Notification, won't look pretty, but you can use it from an 
archaic Mosaic installation or even Lynx.  Because I expect my customers 
to be on HP/UX or a VT-100 or something that can't drive Internet 
Explorer.  In fact, this is the exact reason why the web interface is so 
important...because it's cross platform and doesn't require root privs 
to install.

Nobody chooses my software because it supports these different 
platforms.  They choose it because it's got the best device support, 
best tracking and logging, best enterprise integrations, best support, 
etc.  They are *able to use* my software because it supports their platform.

It doesn't sound like David's going to just start ripping everything 
apart because of this.  He's a professional, you know.  But, I think 
it's totally fair to be a) pissed, and b) looking for a new solution to 
put in place when the time is ripe.

BTW...I love OpenVZ, but only if you can standardize on 100% linux, and 
all using the same kernel.

-Dave

David L. Willson wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:28:13 -0600, Nate Duehr wrote
>   
>> David L. Willson wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> The biggest reason that I used and recommended Vmware's line was their high degree of
>>> platform neutrality.  That's what made them the best.
>>>       
>> Not the best metric for business purposes, really.  What other metrics 
>> drove you to choose VMWare?  If the only reason to choose it was 
>> platform-neutrality (I don't believe that for a minute -- what it DOES 
>> is more useful to you and your business than how you CONTROL it)
>>     
>
> You are correct in disbelieving that platform neutrality was my only criterion for
> selecting the Vmware line, and of course, I didn't say it was.  It wasn't the only
> criterion, but it was a passage through a "barrier to entry", though.  I don't bother
> evaluating or including in comparative evaluation, products that force the use of
> Microsoft products.  Given the wide, and widening, field of choices, I see no need to
> change that.  If I choose or endorse products that only work with MS Windows, for
> example, I am endorsing the decision on the part of the program developer/vendor to
> force me (or my clients) to use Microsoft software.  I can't endorse that decision. 
> Yes, I suppose I take the social responsibility part of my SysAdmin role a little too
> seriously, but I'm OK with that, too.
>
> And "rip and replace" doesn't have to be an expensive temper tantrum.  It can be, a year
> from now, saying to Joe Client, "Vmware Server 2.x is out and Vmware Server 1.x is on
> software 'death row'.  We have to make some sort of move anyway, and, if I have your
> permission, I'd like to roll out (insert the v platform I'm currently using and
> recommending), and move the VMs to that over the next few months, rather than upgrading
> what we have to Vmware Server 2.x.  What do you think?"
>
> By and large, my clients trust me, because they get good results from the network I
> built or rebuilt for them, and the answer is usually something like, "How much?"  "This
> much."  "Do it."
>
> -- David
>
> _______________________________________________
> clue-talk mailing list
> clue-talk at cluedenver.org
> http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk
>