Serves them right
For greenlighting that "reboot" of Ghostbusters. Crap idea then, crap idea now. It seems my voodoo doll has some life left in it yet.
Tosspots. You can't improve on perfection.
221 publicly visible posts • joined 9 Jun 2008
It's probably worth making the distinction between O365 and Azure - O365 seems to be on it's arse more often than not, but to the best of my knowledge, Azure has been pretty sound.
I know they're all shoved under the marketing umbrella of "Microsoft Cloud" but they're very different beasts, really.
I've attempted to watch the first couple of episodes of The Grand Tour, and while it looks amazing in 4K, it's painful to watch. Three old men behaving badly and studio audiences laughing like hyenas at their every word.
Frankly you should be paid to watch Amazon Prime Video if this is the best they can do.
I understand why you might say that, but take a look at some of the ReInvent videos from last year and I'm not sure that's true. One customer did a big preso on how they saved costs by ensuring they used an appropriate instance type. In my experience, much like in the days of virtualisation, folks hopelessly overestimate how much compute they thought they needed.
Anyway, the gist of this preso was that they'd rolled out a bunch of larger instances based on the assumption that the steady state compute would be pretty high. They experimented with T2 instances (bursty workloads) and found they were a lot more appropriate. This saved them something like 60%/70% per month on compute, which is generally the lion's share of the bill.
Properly monitoring what you roll out and sizing it appropriately should not be overlooked once you're live. If you remember it's a living thing that still needs care and attention (regardless of what cloud providers say) then that's half the battle.
vCA is still pretty much a dead dodo. The world has moved on and (certainly in terms of public cloud), VMware hasn't kept pace. vCA has niche use cases such as DRaaS, but even now there are far more cost effective and elegant solutions such as Azure Site Recovery.
Best VMware stick to what they're good at, and leave "real" cloud to the big three, and I say this as a dyed in the wool VMware guy of many years standing.
Simply because Microsoft owns the desktop OS (in all but a name). On this basis, you'd expect Azure to have a much more flexible and cost effective solution simply because they can. AWS will always be subject to more stringent licencing constraints, or so you'd assume.
I wonder if MS will jump into bed with Citrix for desktops too?
The timing of this is slightly fortuitous - I was only talking to a customer about RemoteApp last week. I never really liked it a whole lot, but to have it pulled so quickly really makes you stop and think about how you make decisions when you're using public cloud.
Basically, always have a fire exit to jump somewhere else at short notice.
Another fine article Trev, good work. I'm inclined to agree with your viewpoint, and I've felt this way for a while. Other than NSX and VSAN, VMware has pretty much been in a holding pattern for quite a while. For someone who cut their industry teeth on Novell products, I'm starting to get a touch of deja vu.
No company in tech is too big to fail (not even Apple, given enough time) and I wonder if maybe there was a touch of arrogance at the top of the company a few years back that's contributed to the current state. Obviously revenues are still good, but once people think of their tech as "old hat", then it's only downhill from there.
I've pivoted from VMware and Hyper-V to public cloud - whether you like it or not, those are the skills you'll need for the foreseeable future if you want to get the mortgage paid off a bit quicker.
Actually it's a little bit crafty they say you need Ent+ before you can deploy NSX. This is because you need Distributed Switches and NSX sits on top of them.
I've never really understood why core networking functionality like VDSes were pushed into the top licence and agree that NSX should be part of a core bundle, but at the end of the day it's VMware's new money spinner so they have to bleed it dry with early adopters before making it more competitive for the great unwashed.
Decent article there, Trev. My curiosity was piqued however by the following comment:-
"If you ask about things like self-service or API-driven workload management they'll lose their minds all over social media"
If I didn't know better, I'd say it sounds like a company that may or may not rhyme with Buttflanix.
I know he says he'll still have some input, but moving from his VMware position to one at a VC seems a bit strange to me.
I found his attitude and presentations quite refreshing, he seemed genuinely engaged in NFV and NSX is a very good product. Shame VMware seem intent on keeping most gigs to themselves and not sharing the love with accredited partners, but that's another gripe entirely...
You can't blame the founders for cashing out, but doing so to Oracle suggests Oracle's usual modus operandi of being licensing bastards and generally blocking innovation.
I used Ravello as a vExpert for free and found them brilliant to deal with, unfortunately now a "cloud of clouds" means Oracle have yet another stick to beat you with, rather than giving you a stick to navigate the shark infested oceans out there.
I've had mixed results with my X trying some of these builds (which is to be expected, they are written by the community with no warranties implied etc.) such as the CM 13 build didn't get a GPS lock indoors (known issue) and the 12.x build by Master Awesome (nice name, BTW) is actually not bad and what I'm using right now. The triple slider thing doesn't always work properly, but that's no biggie.
I chose the X because the OPO was far too big. These 5.5" and 6" screens are just getting silly now, I don't want a tablet in my pocket. It's decent value for money, but I find the OxygenOS quite buggy. The big one for me was bluetooth streaming in the car kept breaking up and the metadata doesn't show (OOS is AVRCP 1.5, whereas most cars support only 1.3, I gather).
I don't agree. The best solution, whether that's Nutanix, VSAN, Atlantis or anything else is down to customer requirements and budgets. No one is "better" than the other, they all have their pluses and minuses.
Re the VMware comment, they are in the business of abstracting tin and virtualising it. First with compute, then with networking and now with storage. So it goes. I don't see it as a "me too" strategy, but a logical continuation of what they've already done.
Disclaimer : I work for a VMware Partner.