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

[Nate Duehr]

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.  

Okay... I know people who really can't do their jobs without Visio, as 
one example...  There *is* good software available that's only available 
on the MS platform.

A technology-neutral pragmatist who "just wants to get something done" 
is likely to end up running ALL of the major OS's at some point or 
another.  I don't find having to boot up Windows to mess with the VMWare 
cluster all that big a deal.

> 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. 

Why not?  That's what I'm curious about.

Is it just a "religion" or is there a good business reason not to in 
this case?

Ultimately, we're talking $100 here, and no babies are being killed at 
MS HQ (that we know of!).

> Yes, I suppose I take the social responsibility part of my SysAdmin role a little too
> seriously, but I'm OK with that, too.

Social responsibility?  Isn't our industry the absolute worst about not 
picking "stuff that works" and instead picking "things we like"?

We don't take THAT social responsibility very seriously.  (See recent 
discussion of ripping out and replacing perfectly working SysV startups 
for "something new and interesting"... was anyone having problems 
starting their server software?  Really?  What a waste of 
time/resources/talent, and it extends down from those who chose to do 
it, into my time... to have to learn it so I can remain an effective 
sysadmin.  Why?  Change for change's sake, is retarded.  Change toward a 
defined better goal with a plan on how to get there, is good.  [Sorry, 
more allusions to politics hiding in that one, I can't help but to point 
out.])

> 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?"

Great point. Slow change isn't always bad.  I was just worried you were 
like so many professional sysadmins who's idea of a "deployment" is to 
rip and slash.  Sorry to lump you into that group.

> 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."

Yep, I understand.  We may be coming at it from very different paths, 
but ultimately it sounds like you have your customer's needs closer to 
heart than your own.  That's good.

Far too many corporate IT admins do not.  They usually have the CIO's 
needs at heart.  And CIO's ... well, don't get me started there.  When 
did the IT department start telling the CEO how to run the business? 
Some CIO's have more power than they should over the outcome of the 
decisions being made in the boardroom... or so it seems from 40,000' 
below the boardrooms...

(Of course, I've seen CEOs buy their golfing buddy's products and force 
them into their companies to help their fellow CEOs out too... so I 
guess it cuts both ways.)

Software should a) Make the company money, or b) Save the company money.

I am always so amazed when that's not the number one requirement at the 
top of any IT proposal... complete with estimates and/or real numbers.

We're not here to save society... we're here to make a living.  I do my 
work to "save" society on my own time.  :-)

Nate