3 ms·

It's relevant that they are talking about VMware's security portfolio. The vast majority of why people are VMware proponents is down to their virtualisation so

It's relevant that they are talking about VMware's security portfolio. The vast majority of why people are VMware proponents is down to their virtualisation software. It's why we were big resellers for a while. But for the last few years, their own sales people have only wanted to talk about security products, quite plainly acknowledging stagnant growth in on premise virtualisation. But virtualisation is in my view the only place they've made it big. You've just linked a Reddit post in /r/cybersecurity talking about security products and every reply is about how to replace ESXi. It'll be interesting to see how their future pans out.

andyjohnson0 4y ago
This. Virtualisation has been commodified - cloud, kubernetes, docker, hyper-v, even virtualbox. Whereas securing a decade's worth of on-prem infrastructure is a real pain-point for enterprises. VMware Workstation blew my mind when I saw it demoed in (I think) mid-2000 [1]. I genuinely couldn't believe what I was seeing - it seemed that revolutionary, running an OS inside an OS on a desktop. I wonder whether VMware's problem nowadays is that, having basically invented the technology, they've become almost synonymous with the category of virtualisation tech - kind of like "Hoover" for home appliances - and their other products get less attention. (I know that VMware didn't invent the idea of virtual machines. But my perception is that at that time, virtualised OSs were mostly found in mainframes.)
- scarface74 4y ago
  I was running an x86 VM on my 16Mhz 68030 Mac LCII in 1996 in college - SoftPC by Insignia Solutions.
  - axiolite 4y ago
    > I was running an x86 VM on my 16Mhz 68030 Mac LCII in 1996 in college - SoftPC by Insignia Solutions. That's called emulation. That's not what VMWare does.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      From the parent poster > I genuinely couldn't believe what I was seeing - it seemed that revolutionary, running an OS inside an OS on a desktop SoftPC was in fact “running an OS inside an OS on the desktop “
- anthk 4y ago
  >VMware's problem nowadays is that, having basically invented the technology, IBM, actually, on mainframes.
  - andyjohnson0 4y ago
    > IBM, actually, on mainframes. Yes, I noted that in my post. I guess I meant general purpose virtualisation running on general purpose, commodity hardware. Back in the late 80s spent 18 months in a role where I was developing scientific software on an IBM System/36 under VM/CMS. While this system actually had a hypervisor (CP) running on the physical hardware, and itself running virtualised instances of the CMS OS, it never felt (in hindsight) like I was in a virtualised environment. It seemed more like being logged into a multi-user unix box where everything ran in the same kernel - perhaps because the mainframe virtualisation layer was completely invisible to me, and everyone on the mainframe saw the same OS. But point taken.
- NoPicklez 4y ago
  I side with you on this one, I remember VMware being incredible. So much so it took Microsoft years to implement its own version of ESXI. When people think of virtualisation, they think VMware as a key player in building and pushing the technology. Like when you think of the first smartphone you think of the Apple iPhone, despite there being "smartphones" prior to its release.

andyjohnson0 4y ago

This. Virtualisation has been commodified - cloud, kubernetes, docker, hyper-v, even virtualbox. Whereas securing a decade's worth of on-prem infrastructure is a real pain-point for enterprises. VMware Workstation blew my mind when I saw it demoed in (I think) mid-2000 [1]. I genuinely couldn't believe what I was seeing - it seemed that revolutionary, running an OS inside an OS on a desktop. I wonder whether VMware's problem nowadays is that, having basically invented the technology, they've become almost synonymous with the category of virtualisation tech - kind of like "Hoover" for home appliances - and their other products get less attention. (I know that VMware didn't invent the idea of virtual machines. But my perception is that at that time, virtualised OSs were mostly found in mainframes.)

scarface74 4y ago
I was running an x86 VM on my 16Mhz 68030 Mac LCII in 1996 in college - SoftPC by Insignia Solutions.
- axiolite 4y ago
  > I was running an x86 VM on my 16Mhz 68030 Mac LCII in 1996 in college - SoftPC by Insignia Solutions. That's called emulation. That's not what VMWare does.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    From the parent poster > I genuinely couldn't believe what I was seeing - it seemed that revolutionary, running an OS inside an OS on a desktop SoftPC was in fact “running an OS inside an OS on the desktop “
anthk 4y ago
>VMware's problem nowadays is that, having basically invented the technology, IBM, actually, on mainframes.
- andyjohnson0 4y ago
  > IBM, actually, on mainframes. Yes, I noted that in my post. I guess I meant general purpose virtualisation running on general purpose, commodity hardware. Back in the late 80s spent 18 months in a role where I was developing scientific software on an IBM System/36 under VM/CMS. While this system actually had a hypervisor (CP) running on the physical hardware, and itself running virtualised instances of the CMS OS, it never felt (in hindsight) like I was in a virtualised environment. It seemed more like being logged into a multi-user unix box where everything ran in the same kernel - perhaps because the mainframe virtualisation layer was completely invisible to me, and everyone on the mainframe saw the same OS. But point taken.
NoPicklez 4y ago
I side with you on this one, I remember VMware being incredible. So much so it took Microsoft years to implement its own version of ESXI. When people think of virtualisation, they think VMware as a key player in building and pushing the technology. Like when you think of the first smartphone you think of the Apple iPhone, despite there being "smartphones" prior to its release.