81–90 of 430 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pairing virtualization software tech with hardware chipsets that directly support it seems like a good plan.
I think this is the play. They can create or influence standards that favor their new position - build vertical integration where others in this space cannot.
Oh no https://www.reddit.com/r/cybersecurity/comments/uxucz4/if_vm...
This feels way too pessimistic, VMware got big before open source virtualization took off. I imagine someone could use docker instead of VMware in most cases, and if that's not possible then hire some people to make it so. Vendor lockin is a scary thing, the people who are really going to hurt here are mega super corps who are now going to have to pay out the nose. If you're a smaller company, you should be moving to…
It's been a few years since I've worked with bare metal, but doesn't Docker require a hypervisor for the containers?
You could swap to KVM or Hyper-V, but transitioning an org's hypervisor on bare metal is a massive task any way you cut it.
Ponders if it will payoff as an investment. Hyper visors are nowdays commodity. Workloads are moving from enterprise onsite datacenters to the cloud. Hyperscalers AWS,Google and Azure running the cloud are running work loads on Linux KVM kernel based virtual machines.
I was under the impression each of those had custom hypervisors? While perhaps still Linux that doesn’t seem like a commodity.
Which is based upon KVM - AIUI.
https://www.kovarus.com/blog/deep-dive-into-the-aws-nitro-sy...
Enterprise software is such a mystery to me. I can't imagine any company ran by To me it just looks like older companies paying to keep from having to deal with Linux directly
Those companies run all their boring, essential software (accounting, ERPs, etc.) on VMWare, Oracle, Azure, etc. Since software isn't their core business, they pay an external company to keep their software running. Like it or not, cloud providers are for software companies, and most companies have no interest in becoming a software company. They might have some small groups that do analytics or software in-house, and those groups might use cloud providers, but all the essential software will be run by a company you can call when something breaks, or if you're big enough embeds some staff in your office.
It's just good sense to outsource non-core functions. Software companies outsource hosting and datacenter stuff to AWS, etc. Why should enterprises deal with Linux directly?
Just like analysts said IBM brought RedHat mainly for Openshift platform and I think there is some truth to it. Seems Broadcom has brought VMWare for their Tanzu platform which is direct competitor of Openshift. It is less about virtualization in corporate data centers which many agree here is legacy business at this point.
I don't understand the stock market. VMW at $50B market cap equates to ~$120 per share. The Broadcom acquisition is for ~20% more, and yet, the stock price is at $120, not... $145 or something. Can someone more financially literate (or with direct experience in the stock market) explain this discrepancy to me? (comment made at ~9:33am ET, stock market opened a few minutes ago)
Not sure I understand the expected synergies here. Broadcom's main business is making embedded chips for networking and storage devices. Is this just a pure diversification play?
Probably. 6 months ago they were looking at acquiring SAS (which didn't go anywhere). The core competencies for that of those companies are even less related to what Broadcom does.
Enterprise software is such a mystery to me. I can't imagine any company ran by To me it just looks like older companies paying to keep from having to deal with Linux directly
A friend uses VMWare in an IT role at a medium sized company. They don’t have a software engineering team, just a bunch of users and an IT skeleton crew; so it makes sense for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Big companies are starting to learn that free open source can be supported in house, in some cases it is even cheaper, but in others the flexibility of being in control of when a much needed by only you feature is developed is a big deal. Open source also is never acquired and the price jacked up to beyond the worth but they are forced to pay the price anyway because they can't get off before their license expires.
I work for a small company and they seem to have figured this out 20 years ago. I've been tasked with supporting the network and I've got to say that all the fancy (or not) proprietary firewalls all seem like a pick your own poison of cost/support issues, and they all go end of life eventually but the network needs to keep running. We also use PFSense in a few places and I think the feeling among the operations team…
I don't know what business you're in and maybe after a nightly tape backup there's nothing important for you to lose. Frankly that's most small businesses. But if you've got real trade secrets get a proper IDS/IPS before you regret it.
I don't understand the stock market. VMW at $50B market cap equates to ~$120 per share. The Broadcom acquisition is for ~20% more, and yet, the stock price is at $120, not... $145 or something. Can someone more financially literate (or with direct experience in the stock market) explain this discrepancy to me? (comment made at ~9:33am ET, stock market opened a few minutes ago)