[zurn]

Despite being critical this sounds like the author is still wearing quite VMware-colored glasses:

> Unfortunately, the world that they built is now eating them. Hypervisors became commodity, where "good enough" is an acceptable target. Hyper-V, Xen, KVM: they all became good enough for ecosystems to be built around them

In reality VMware (and VirtualBox) were leapfrogged by platform native hypervisors quality-wise, at least on Linux. Which is inevitable since there isn't really any way to ship robust proprietary binary-only kernel drivers of this complexity there.

(ESXi might be another story, but it's also not just a hypervisor, it's a whole stack of enterprisey proprietary infrastructure that you commit to instead of open systems, and hopping on that train is more a cultural/strategy/mindset choice than something based on technical hypervisor-vs-hypervisor benchmark)

[josteink]

> (ESXi might be another story, but it's also not just a hypervisor, it's a whole stack of enterprisey proprietary infrastructure that you commit to instead of open systems, and hopping on that train is more a cultural/strategy/mindset choice than something based on technical hypervisor-vs-hypervisor benchmark)

I may be wrong here, but I thought ESXi was the lightweight hypervisor-only product (which at the time was offered for free!), without all the enterprisey features or requirements.

Basically Microsoft Windows Hyper-V without the need to boot an OS of its own.

[op00to]

Well, yes. It's a hypervisor only product. It also requires you to use VMware's tools to manage, and that closed architect poses road blocks to integrating it into a larger hybrid cloud environment. To basically do anything resembling what a real business would want, youd need to throw big bags of money at VMware to get more features. You can build all that in the open with KVM.