4 ms·

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,

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 docker or another open source solution anyway.

metamet 4y ago
> 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. 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.
- zekrioca 4y ago
  Currently, Docker only requires an hypervisor if you set it on Windows or MacOS.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- electroly 4y ago
  No, docker doesn't require a hypervisor of any kind.
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
  No, Docker is not a hypervisor and doesn't use one unless you need to add one for security reasons; it uses Linux features to build containers. On the other hand, yes switching from virtual machines to containers it is likely to be a non-trivial workflow change and not something a company can do on a dime.
- jordanbeiber 4y ago
  No hypervisor for cgroups (docker & friends), no. Which is why something like LXD/LXC outperforms hypervisor virtualization by quite a bit. I was on a team that ran performance critical stuff for a reasonable sized ecommerce business - moving from vmware to bare metal was fantastic on every level from api’s to performance and reliability. The enterprise spirit is stong in vmware.
zerkten 4y ago
It's not purely a case of vendor lock-in, but that shouldn't be downplayed too much. Virtualization is still very much applicable for the legacy applications which are still prevalent. New apps may run in containers, but it's not just a few big companies running ancient legacy software. When you refer to smaller company and mention docker, or open source, it's only those that are tech startups, or close to the field with the skill to operate in this fashion. The majority of small and medium companies don't have the skills or resources to do this. Over time that changes, but it's completely unrealistic to think that they can get away quickly from VMware (even when their overworked IT person would like to.)
- 999900000999 4y ago
  Then we have a market for a nice UI wrapper around Docker which provides a display render. You can run Windows in a docker container so this would support legacy applications. I'm not saying it's easy, but it's not insurmountable. If all else fails, Virtual box is open source
mrweasel 4y ago
VMware has a ton of product, none of them really competes with Docker. They do have Tanzu I suppose, but that more a Kubernetes offering. I would argue that there are more Docker containers running on a VM, running on top of VMware than there are Docker containers running on bare metal servers. Both VMs and containers can be used and misused in a number of ways, but rarely can you replace a VM on VMware ESXi with Docker. There's still a massive business case for VMware and the only real competitors are Microsoft Hyper-V and Citrix XenServer (if it's still called that). You also have to remember that there's a crazy big Microsoft world out there, Docker and containers still aren't of much use here. While this could run on Hyper-V, many just pick ESXi because it's what they know (No one was ever fired for choosing VMware).
- 999900000999 4y ago
  You can run Windows in Docker. Ether figure it out now, or in 2 years when VMware starts to suck. Then again, all the big companies I know put things off until the last moment. If I was a better developer I'd be putting together a project right now that allows you to run all your happy legacy Windows software with Docker. Shouldn't be hard to raise a bit of funding for such a project assuming you have the right background.
  - thedougd 4y ago
    I'm running some in production. Windows containers are full of problems, gotchas, and caveats. It feels as though Microsoft has already abandoned it and moved on. Similar feelings with DSC and other modernization efforts for Windows. I believe their focus has entirely shifted to Azure and will slowly replace the Windows Server use cases with SaaS and PaaS offerings.
  - solarkraft 4y ago
    > You can run Windows in Docker ... on Windows. So it doesn't really mesh with a typical server environment.
    - 999900000999 4y ago
mvdwoord 4y ago
Ever tried to manage 50.000 production vms? Whith a mix of applications which cannot be easily containerized... Vcenter, vrops, NSX, etc . You could reinvent, build in house. Or you can buy VMware with support. What would the regulator prefer? But, this does offer incentive for outsiders to create competitive stacks.
- indigodaddy 4y ago
  This 1000%. And this applies to a huge percentage of very large orgs/ISPs/telecoms/fortune 500s, etc. VMware for the most part “just works” and is entrenched in these companies, much like AD. If you are rolling your own replacement of VMware, what happens if a couple (or even say 20 out of your 5000) of your “parent” hosts go down. Will all of your guests auto-migrate to healthy hosts? And we are not talking about Kubernetes or similar here. That is very different. You don’t roll your own VMware alternative. You just use VMware.

metamet 4y ago

> 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. 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.

zekrioca 4y ago
Currently, Docker only requires an hypervisor if you set it on Windows or MacOS.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
electroly 4y ago
No, docker doesn't require a hypervisor of any kind.
yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
No, Docker is not a hypervisor and doesn't use one unless you need to add one for security reasons; it uses Linux features to build containers. On the other hand, yes switching from virtual machines to containers it is likely to be a non-trivial workflow change and not something a company can do on a dime.
jordanbeiber 4y ago
No hypervisor for cgroups (docker & friends), no. Which is why something like LXD/LXC outperforms hypervisor virtualization by quite a bit. I was on a team that ran performance critical stuff for a reasonable sized ecommerce business - moving from vmware to bare metal was fantastic on every level from api’s to performance and reliability. The enterprise spirit is stong in vmware.

zerkten 4y ago

It's not purely a case of vendor lock-in, but that shouldn't be downplayed too much. Virtualization is still very much applicable for the legacy applications which are still prevalent. New apps may run in containers, but it's not just a few big companies running ancient legacy software. When you refer to smaller company and mention docker, or open source, it's only those that are tech startups, or close to the field with the skill to operate in this fashion. The majority of small and medium companies don't have the skills or resources to do this. Over time that changes, but it's completely unrealistic to think that they can get away quickly from VMware (even when their overworked IT person would like to.)

999900000999 4y ago
Then we have a market for a nice UI wrapper around Docker which provides a display render. You can run Windows in a docker container so this would support legacy applications. I'm not saying it's easy, but it's not insurmountable. If all else fails, Virtual box is open source

mrweasel 4y ago

VMware has a ton of product, none of them really competes with Docker. They do have Tanzu I suppose, but that more a Kubernetes offering. I would argue that there are more Docker containers running on a VM, running on top of VMware than there are Docker containers running on bare metal servers. Both VMs and containers can be used and misused in a number of ways, but rarely can you replace a VM on VMware ESXi with Docker. There's still a massive business case for VMware and the only real competitors are Microsoft Hyper-V and Citrix XenServer (if it's still called that). You also have to remember that there's a crazy big Microsoft world out there, Docker and containers still aren't of much use here. While this could run on Hyper-V, many just pick ESXi because it's what they know (No one was ever fired for choosing VMware).

999900000999 4y ago
You can run Windows in Docker. Ether figure it out now, or in 2 years when VMware starts to suck. Then again, all the big companies I know put things off until the last moment. If I was a better developer I'd be putting together a project right now that allows you to run all your happy legacy Windows software with Docker. Shouldn't be hard to raise a bit of funding for such a project assuming you have the right background.
- thedougd 4y ago
  I'm running some in production. Windows containers are full of problems, gotchas, and caveats. It feels as though Microsoft has already abandoned it and moved on. Similar feelings with DSC and other modernization efforts for Windows. I believe their focus has entirely shifted to Azure and will slowly replace the Windows Server use cases with SaaS and PaaS offerings.
- solarkraft 4y ago
  > You can run Windows in Docker ... on Windows. So it doesn't really mesh with a typical server environment.
  - 999900000999 4y ago

mvdwoord 4y ago

Ever tried to manage 50.000 production vms? Whith a mix of applications which cannot be easily containerized... Vcenter, vrops, NSX, etc . You could reinvent, build in house. Or you can buy VMware with support. What would the regulator prefer? But, this does offer incentive for outsiders to create competitive stacks.

indigodaddy 4y ago
This 1000%. And this applies to a huge percentage of very large orgs/ISPs/telecoms/fortune 500s, etc. VMware for the most part “just works” and is entrenched in these companies, much like AD. If you are rolling your own replacement of VMware, what happens if a couple (or even say 20 out of your 5000) of your “parent” hosts go down. Will all of your guests auto-migrate to healthy hosts? And we are not talking about Kubernetes or similar here. That is very different. You don’t roll your own VMware alternative. You just use VMware.