4 ms·

So I know that its VMWare, so the fees will be eyewatering, but 85% reduction is really meaningless in this story. How much was Tottenham using? Did the 85% ac

So I know that its VMWare, so the fees will be eyewatering, but 85% reduction is really meaningless in this story. How much was Tottenham using? Did the 85% actually cover the cost of their new CTO coming in and switching platforms? It's very vague.

INTPenis 26d ago
Yeah it means nothing without details. They're a new HPE customer so they might be getting a discount the first year or something. A friend of mine is a virtualization SME and from what I can tell you don't really save that much on the alternatives. Also, HPE sell VMware. HPE has a modular solution where you can pick the hypervisor you want to use, including VMware. At my $dayjob we use Proxmox and it's good enough. I think Proxmox would be good enough for most orgs. But my friend works with the tax agency and they definitely make use of vSAN, NSX, and all those nice features that puts VMware above the competition.
Brian_K_White 26d ago
To me it doesn't matter if it costs more or less to migrate. It's worth infinity to walk away from anyone who abuses you. It's also worth infinity to switch from anything proprietary to open source. The claimed advantages of whatever proprietary product never really exist. You always get more value by paying developers instead of paying rent. ...And tolerating license audits. It boggles my mind that people are willing to tolerate some douchebags from MS or anyone else to come in to your office and turn over every rock and look through all your books, and you PAY them for this!
- happymellon 26d ago
  I would agree. But that was not the story.
siliconpotato 26d ago
And none of the quotes from that Pickering guy actually made any sense
9x39 26d ago
>The organization is saving “north of 85 percent” in licensing fees compared to when it relied on VMware, the executive said. Nothing we can't google. VMWare VCF is, let's say, $350/CPU core. MVE is $600/socket, so at 32 cores, that's $18.75/core. At 64 cores, $9.38. An 85% reduction in licensing/support fees is plausible. 100% was already possible, just not with 24/7 support.

INTPenis 26d ago

Yeah it means nothing without details. They're a new HPE customer so they might be getting a discount the first year or something. A friend of mine is a virtualization SME and from what I can tell you don't really save that much on the alternatives. Also, HPE sell VMware. HPE has a modular solution where you can pick the hypervisor you want to use, including VMware. At my $dayjob we use Proxmox and it's good enough. I think Proxmox would be good enough for most orgs. But my friend works with the tax agency and they definitely make use of vSAN, NSX, and all those nice features that puts VMware above the competition.

Brian_K_White 26d ago

To me it doesn't matter if it costs more or less to migrate. It's worth infinity to walk away from anyone who abuses you. It's also worth infinity to switch from anything proprietary to open source. The claimed advantages of whatever proprietary product never really exist. You always get more value by paying developers instead of paying rent. ...And tolerating license audits. It boggles my mind that people are willing to tolerate some douchebags from MS or anyone else to come in to your office and turn over every rock and look through all your books, and you PAY them for this!

happymellon 26d ago
I would agree. But that was not the story.

siliconpotato 26d ago

And none of the quotes from that Pickering guy actually made any sense

9x39 26d ago

>The organization is saving “north of 85 percent” in licensing fees compared to when it relied on VMware, the executive said. Nothing we can't google. VMWare VCF is, let's say, $350/CPU core. MVE is $600/socket, so at 32 cores, that's $18.75/core. At 64 cores, $9.38. An 85% reduction in licensing/support fees is plausible. 100% was already possible, just not with 24/7 support.