> Basically, this customer was using BOTH Nutanix and VMWare internally (I am VERY surprised how the previous CFO did not get fired for something like that), and because they already had the Nutanix knowhow and licenses, migrated fully to it.
Why do you think that? Not putting all of your eggs into a single vendor basket seems like a solid plan - if anything the Broadcom/VMware disaster supports it.
Have you ever seen Nutanix's pricebook as well as VMWare's?
Spending 2x on hypervisors is dumb because now you need 2x the headcount on SMEs because you'll need both a Nutanix and VMware SME, as well as 2x the contract negotiations, and the money you are spending on both could have been better spend improving your product or hiring more people to sell your product.
It's a bad use of capital. At the end of the day, Infra is a cost center. It's something used to keep the lights on, but doesn't expand your TAM.
> It's a bad use of capital. At the end of the day, Infra is a cost center. It's something used to keep the lights on, but doesn't expand your TAM.
Indeed it is and while CFOs may not completely understand the technology they do understand risk and if the CTO has flagged "single vendor" as a risk then the CFO will go with that.
I also wouldn't be surprised if pre-Broadcom VMWare APJ AEs gave these guys a sweetheart deal just to make logo/ACV quota in their region. Shenanigans like that were VERY common at VMWare before the acquisition. Their SalesOps was horrid.
> every single large company I worked for had AWS, Azure and Google Cloud,
Multi-cloud is different from on-prem related stuff like multi-hypervisors, because there are multiple billing methods, the muscle to migrate is much better built in the industry, and your cloud costs can be placed within R&D (which traditionally gets way more leeway due to tax benefits) whereas any IT Infra spend will inevitably fall under the Finance&IT budget.
Of course it's very different, but it's the same in how buying the same functionality from a competitor is not a reason to get you fired unless there are other specific conditions.
Imho the TPM 2.0 requirement killed Windows 11. There's still huge fleets of incompatible, yet still perfectly useful, PCs out there - especially in large corp environments.
Written in 2018 before Puppet was bought by Perforce - would be interesting to read a new update to see if any of Luke's ideas or practices managed to survive the buyout.
He would probably still agree with everything, but taken the money.
He was at the top correct, a founder, and thus in his article, he would have taken the majority of the money.
It is possible to know something is wrong, and feel guilt, but still take the money and continue to voice these ideas about change.
It is hard to change a system when you are winning it. That doesn't mean he isn't also right that a lot of people are victims of it.
""In other words, they generate profit because they pay their employees less than they’re worth. If everyone could trade their labor for exactly the amount of money it was worth, the corporations that employ them would have a much harder time making money. Instead, in modern corporations the shareholders and the executive team - again, the central planning committee we so despise - make the majority of the money, while the front line does all the work and makes very little.""
> So I guess what this really means is someone at a big corporation making Linux distros should audit their full dependency tree.
This is it precisely. When you're paying Redhat for an "enterprise" Linux then that guarantee should extend down their entire software stack. Just getting the odd backported patch and so-so email support no longer cuts it.
The industry has this narrative because it suits their desire to sell higher-margined cloud services. However in the real world, especially in academia as cks is, the reality is that many workloads are still not suitable for the cloud.
So basically, the current iteration of the AVP is the Apple Newton: you can kind of see where the product could lead to but right now it's held back by the realities of current technology.
The iPhone (2007) was essentially what the Newton (1993) wanted to be, and even it was severely held back by the tech available. It was pretty bad until the 3GS or the iPhone 4.
I think it's fair to say the Newton was ~15 years ahead of its time, and any amount of investment could not have significantly accelerated that. You need all the incremental semiconductor industry advancements along the way.
I always got the impression that Newton was plenty great for what it was and dearly loved by its users. The Palmpilot was much simpler and it saw great success and was very useful.
Why do you think that? Not putting all of your eggs into a single vendor basket seems like a solid plan - if anything the Broadcom/VMware disaster supports it.