> One aspect of being responsible for the entire stack is that we can give excellent support. It’s never some other company’s problem. You aren't responsible f

> One aspect of being responsible for the entire stack is that we can give excellent support. It’s never some other company’s problem. You aren't responsible for the entire stack though. You have Intel, Mellanox, Microsoft, Redhat, Oracle, SAP, Intersystems, etc. And this type of "support" is surely a huge burden in terms of manpower and infrastructure required. You can't scale this and have the core developers on call solving customer problems. You could have a hypervisor architecture which is technically better and requires less support overhead than KVM for example, but can you really compete with Redhat for governments and enterprise white glove support just with that advantage? > See my other link elsewhere in the thread for why we’re different than writing that check to Dell. This one? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30678324 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30678324 The problem is once you're talking a real solution, the system management and provisioning and BMC and partitioning stuff is not the really hard part. Plug in and power on another rack and the systems show up in the management console and you can partition and provision them, sure. IBM and other "enterprise" vendors have that. They're clunky but they have procedure manuals and training and they just work for the most part. It's what you actually do with those racks is the difficult thing. Enterprise isn't as smooth or scalable as "hyperscale" here. It's a lot of old crufty legacy in house and ISV software.