[karmarepellent]

You are absolutely right that consolidation minimizes overhead. I work in an IT department who relies on VMware and I certainly do not look forward to the prospect of updating all our tooling to work with multiple hypervisors. It works quite well as it is.

And it certainly makes sense in the short term to spend the money on the product instead of on infrastructre. I just wonder about the long term in the context of how we do business. Because on the one hand you have management pushing topics like "risk management" where I have to take responsibility for the most trivial of things in day-to-day operations. And then there is the hypervisor issue where "risk management" goes out of the window and we happily rely on a single hypervisor that could (from one day to the next, more or less) upend all our business.

[alephnerd]

Yep. It is a conundrum, and why a lot of my peers in F500s lead hybrid cloud or a multi-cloud migrations. This way you can auto-scale if needed within your cloud providers (which are easier to migrate from than on-prem due to better DevEx) or return back to on-prem if needed from a cost saving or infra standpoint.

That said, these are questions that are very organization dependent.

[mlrtime]

Why does risk management go out the window? Don't you highlight a single vendor in your BCP plan? Raise the risk, do some quick analysis on how to mitigate that risk and let someone sign off on it.

Accepting the risk doesn't mean 'going out the window'.