back to article VMware: Sure, you might run our stuff on bare-metal Azure, but we don't have to like it

VMware is making clear it is not on board with Microsoft's plan to offer its software on bare-metal Azure servers. A since-softened blog post from Ajay Patel, VMware's senior VP of product development for cloud services, serves as the virtualization specialist's notice to customers that it would prefer they opt for another …

  1. Doogie Howser MD

    Why would VMware like it?

    After all, it's just another off ramp from vSphere to the cloud...

    1. big_D Silver badge

      Re: Why would VMware like it?

      I think that is part of the problem, plus using Azure with Hyper-V is going to be easier in the long-run, so VMWare are probably worried that Microsoft and its customers will use it as a stepping stone...

      1. TheVogon

        Re: Why would VMware like it?

        "plus using Azure with Hyper-V is going to be easier in the long-run"

        More to the point, Hyper-V Server is completely free with all features enabled. And you can manage it from vCentre if you want to!

  2. K

    This article is full of mistakes..

    For example:

    "With this offering, we are delivering to customers a jointly architected..."

    Should read:

    "With this offering, you are delivering more mulla to us.. than we'd get from Azure..."

  3. DavidCarter

    So Microsoft are either lying that they're running it on Azure hardware, being it runs on a Cisco-NetApp Flexpod, or is "Azure hardware" really just Cisco-NetApp Flexpods?

    1. elip

      Nah, Flexpod just for bare metal services like these. Everything else? Who knows.

      I agree with very few things VMware says. In this instance, as an Azure customer, I would agree and say, stay clear of Azure if you have a choice.

      With that said, why would I want to run VMware to begin with, wether its on someone else's hardware or mine? Are people really that delusional about their stability, cost, and support?

      1. Tom Samplonius

        "Are people really that delusional about their stability, cost, and support?"

        Significantly less delusional than those that use Hyper-V, I suppose? Hyper-V is "free", but you have to buy the Windows license. So if you aren't necessarily running Windows at all, ESX is less expensive. But KMV could be even cheaper.

        1. TheVogon

          "Hyper-V is "free", but you have to buy the Windows license. "

          No you don't. If you run say Linux on Hyper-v server, no Windows or licenses are required. Hyper-v server has always been a totally free download. Just burn onto a disk, boot from it and install...

  4. Victor 2

    Funny

    VMware doesn't like to be out-VMware'd

  5. J. Cook Silver badge
    Joke

    But will we be able to run a Hyper-V instance on top of this VMware instance on top of the Azure instance?

    (bonus points if you can manage to run a VMware instance inside of all that, for full on inception mode. :))

    1. Field Commander A9
      Coat

      (Un)surprisingly, yes you can.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like