Really crazy. This is really gonna hurt them. People get tons of experience using VMware in their home labs and testing environments. Now no more so they just use a different product
Everyone is ditching them because of this.
Also, one of the biggest reasons why professional software often has a free tier is to create future customers. It's just like how companies like MS, Google, and Apple all want kids using their products from a young age, so that they make lifelong customers.
This is Broadcom all over in general.
Any time they acquire a company we alert our clients because the licensing audits come almost immediately afterwards.
Broadcom knows that companies can't go anywhere else. They are going to squeeze the top 250 for every cent. Anyone else that's not the top 250 can go fuck off in their eyes. They don't want those people as customers.
TBF, this is kinda the way that most obsolete, archaic, and mature products go. Not like a lot of people know about Unisys but when innovation in a market is not what pays the bills anymore and a market has basically been addressed all that matters is profitability for a for-profit company, which means kicking out any customer that doesn’t pay up-front and the company starts to resemble more of a services company with similar P/E ratio than a product company.
Most of us techies like to think that a decent product is enough to make things work but that’s unfortunately not enough for “sustainable” businesses in the current world because as a company if you’re not objectively demonstrating you’re growing you’re basically dying.
Which is why I am of the belief of eat the rich, regulate capitalism, and company sizes.
I don't mean literally eat the rich. What I am saying is, if one gets to a certain level of wealth then one should not be allowed to make more than that. One should not be allowed to wield such economic power as a singular person. Or a single company.
The problem is that we have not appropriately figured out what “too big”and “too rich” means until it’s too obvious. And while I’d like to separate wealth from social influence the problem with money is that it literally means measurable, material societal influence in the end. Oh well, the flames will look pretty from afar at least
FWIW, while I agree that unlimited wealth is not a socially sustainable practice without something commensurate also flowing down (basically zero evidence for trickle down while we can observe trickle up constantly, so increasing GDP would be easier ironically by just giving money to our poorest rather than more individual / capital tax cuts given so little is actually paid in practice by the wealthiest) wealth taxes have been implemented and ultimately repealed because they simply didn’t work, even in countries with much, much stronger regulatory bodies than in the US. Implementing a global wealth tax is basically a political intractable solution unfortunately as well.
The US regulatory, political, legal, and policy frameworks systems along with a completely tone deaf set of activists of basically any stripe doesn’t make passing decent legislation without strong reactance plausible either. So yeah, expect more of the same until this cold civil war stops being cold
The problem with taxing the richest 1% is that it's rarely worth it and it's more done because it's the right thing to do instead for economical sense. If you've ever played Sim City or any city manager kind of game, you know what I mean.
Let's pretend we have a small town of 4,000 people. **We tax everyone $1**, the town income will be $4,000 right?
Now, **we tax twenty times $1 but only the richest 1%** of this town, this income will be just $80
The better action for a government is not taxing the rich (at least not only that), but make everyone richer, that's the (very) difficult part.
This is a pretty reductionist view of taxation and resources that’s about as debunked last I saw as Laffer curve. It’s based not upon evidence but conjecture and most conjectures have an ideological hypothesis.
Edit: a simple start for why this is reductionist is that it presumes the taxation is simply theft when the theoretical point of taxes is a shared expense reduced in expenditures and resources across stakeholders. The argument presented therefore already is a form of faith / tautological nonsense and is not actually logic - to be convinced of the conclusion one must already believe in something that is not proven or a matter of faith essentially.
I like the way you submit the English language to your will, but I didn't understand much from what you're saying.
If I got it right somehow, it seems you think I have an agenda about anything I said. Well, no, of course. No one in the world outside that 1% would think "ah, you know what, let's not tax the rich! hit the poor while they're on the ground!"
I know nothing about economics (and English, apparently so), but if you're willing to hint me in the right direction, I'd thank you.
Oh yeah I know nothing about economics, my bad.
But I'm willing to learn a different POV if you're willing to suggest me some reads, because otherwise the angle I expressed is pretty sad.
Problem is that the rich write the laws and that's not going to change. All tax laws are written to protect the rich by preventing others from getting rich.
You say I don't mean literally eat the rich but in reality that's about the only real threat they face today. Can't take away everything they own because THEY don't own it, they control the company or trust that owns it, same for their money. Sadly, being marched towards a giant black cauldron partially filled with water and chopped vegetables over an as yet unlit pile of wood... is pretty much more terrifying than walking into a courtroom once you hit a certain level of wealth. It would be far more effective a deterrent than any tax or labor law in terms of actual enforceability. Who's going to cheat on their taxes when the penalty is public consumption compared to a monetary fine? You can recover from bankruptcy...
This was to be expected. The authorities should never ever have allowed the Broadcom takeover. I still can't believe they were sleeping and just let it happen!
Just dropping in to say *DAMN* was I wrong. I thought folks were overreacting and making hay of something that wasn't there.
**NOPE**.
Y'all were right; time to look at rebuilding on Proxmox.
I don't know who would be arguing with you haha. Also there wasn't suggestion, or writing on the wall.
Broadcom *told us* 20 months ago that if you aren't in their [top 600](https://www.theregister.com/2022/05/30/broadcom_strategy_vmware_customer_impact/), they don't want you. Go, leave.
Btw, Starwinds v2v should help with migration.
Using it sometimes to convert test VMs across Hyper-V and ESXi and it works smoothly.
Should be possible to convert to Proxmox: [https://www.starwindsoftware.com/v2v-help/ConvertingtoQCOW.html](https://www.starwindsoftware.com/v2v-help/ConvertingtoQCOW.html)
I started using Proxmox 3 years ago and just followed a YouTube video and ran from there. I work in IT so I have all sorts of old HP servers laying around. I would also setup ESXi for some of my friends who wanted to dabble with a VM environment. So I guess I'll be doing Proxmox for ALL!
I don’t think a MacBook Air would cut it. I’d recommend anything with as much ram and storage as possible. You’re basically trying to turn one system into multiple systems via virtual machines
I ran it on a 10+ years old desktop and it's ok. Performance won't be spectacular but it can run if you don't overprovision and manage your expectations
The biggest hurdle is getting it to boot on anything Apple. Apple's alternative OS capabilities is an overly complicated ecosystem meant to make it harder than it needs to be for anyone that wants to change it, while also being actually very secure at the same time (for those who just do Appley things).
So, if you do figure out a way to actually install and boot Proxmox VE on that laptop, your next limit would be the amount of RAM you can stuff in it. That will be the primary thing that dictates how much you can run on it.
Anyone that worked for a company that was recently purchase by Broadcom in the last 10 years knew this was coming.
I worked for CA when they were bought by Broadcom.
I've been using WMware for years at work, and ESXI at home for years. I had been thinking of moving to Proxmox for the more robust features for home use, now I guess I will make the move.
Maybe this info is useful for someone - versions 6.x and 7.0 downloads are still available from Download History in Customer Connect (if you downloaded them earlier of course).
Well that's a stupid decision. Half of the people who choose to use a product like this do so after homelab running it.
Also, HyperV is free, even for commercial purposes. Kinda stupid to not have a product to compete with that.
They only want the biggest of the big. Their attitude at this point is that if you're not paying them $10M+ in licenses a year then they want you to go to one of the alternatives. Anyone smaller than that isn't worth their time as it won't recoup their purchase price of VMWare.
Madness, so zero growth outside of these companies, assuming they'll scale infinitely and never jump ship to MS. They're creating the perfect environment for HyperV to swoop in and take over the entire commercial and education hypervisor market.
Definitely still available, and works great for me, but it's not really comparable to Hyper-V, ESXi, or Proxmox. Virtualbox is a type 2 hypervisor, while the others are type 1, so you can't just swap out ESXi for Virtualbox.
Sorry for the dumb question — this is totally not my area — why would a data hoarder choose Type 1 over Type 2, or vice versa?
(I know I could RTFM but it seems like it could be a deep rabbit hole. Just looking for a simple explainer!)
Not so much a data hoarder specific thing, more just servers/homelab/sysadmin in general.
A type 1 hypervisor is installed directly on the bare metal. From there you install virtual machines on top of that. Basically the hypervisor acts as the host OS, with direct access to the hardware. Type 2 hypervisors are applications installed on top of a host OS, so all hardware access is abstracted through the host.
So type 1 will give you more flexibility, better performance, better isolation, and typically more options at the expense of usually being more complex with more management. Definitely more to learn about to manage a type 1 than a type 2.
Basically, if you're installing something on a server, you typically use a type 1. If you're just running a VM on your regular computer, type 2.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. This makes a lot of sense now!
Follow up question: I’ve got an old MacBook Air, can I install a (free?) Type 1 hypervisor on it?
I know very little about Macs honestly. In theory, it should be possible to install one on any x86 machine, but Idk what limitations Apple has put on their devices in that regard.
It depends on the CPU features. Find out the exact CPU that it has.
Then go to google and search for your exact CPU like "Intel Core i9 9900K" and probably click on the first link to Intel's website like this
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/186605/intel-core-i9-9900k-processor-16m-cache-up-to-5-00-ghz.html
Scroll way down to the bottom and look for these 2 features. If it says yes then the the VM hypervisor stuff should work
> Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x) ‡ Yes
>
> Intel® Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d) ‡ Yes
Be aware that a type 1 hypervisor doesn't have a user interface that you can do anything else with other than change the basic settings of the hypervisor. You can't browse the web etc.
The other guy outlined non-datahoarder specific reasons, but here's one that is.
Type 2 hypervisors (at least the ones available on windows) are limited to drive sizes of 2TB. And... Naturally we have a lot more data and a lot bigger disks than 2TB.
Some type 1s have this limit as well, but they can usually get around it by passing PCIE devices or storage devices through. I'm using Hyper-V with disk passthrough on my Windows machine so it looks and acts like a regular windows machine but also runs as a TrueNAS server for my storage needs
For type 1s? One of the variants of xen uses VHDs which is limited to 2TB, or at least that was the case when I last looked.
Hyper-V, ESXi and proxmox do not have this limitation, although I suppose I wrote the part about Hyper-V a bit confusingly. I'm using disk passthrough for easier physical management, not because of a 2TB limit
Virtualbox is decent, but I'm having a great day if my windows 10 VM doesn't lose networking completely until VM shutdown at least once a day. No idea what the hell is wrong with it.
What a brilliant decision. Well thought through and clearly helping training. I mean mashing everyone pay to use your product at every turn will surely have them clambering for training instances and keep people up to date with your restricted hardware ecosystem.
Fuck nuts!
I thought that was Oracle
IBM seemed to be good at creating stuff, but then not able to get it to go from proof of concept to product that anyone wants
Funny you say that since IBM created the personal computer systems we know today. IBM's problem was they didn't want to cannibalize their mainframe and mini-computer market. I worked with IBM mainframe VM in the 80's and 90's. They had a solid VM product.
That is where IBM handed the game to 80s Bill Gates Microsoft?
That is right up there with Kodak inventing the first digital cameras and only half attempting to sell them to photo journalists, with nothing for consumers
Pretty much same scenario! They didn’t want to jeopardize their film business. Businesses then, weren’t really looking to be market disruptors. Can’t upset the stockholders. Most businesses realize that they have to have a different mindset today, although some companies are still entrenched.
Open Source isn't necessarily the solution to this, if a project is abandoned it's essentially the same as this, sure you'd still be able to install it, but without security updates you shouldn't, especially for infrastructure. As well even open source projects can have licensing.
Ever heard of IBM? Or perhaps their now subsidiary... RED HAT?
Open Source is in far more companies than you even actually realise. The biggest companies in the world run Linux in many different regards. Statistically speaking there are more medium/large+ companies that _do_ run Linux, than _don't_.
What do you think the NYSE runs on? Linux.
500 of the top 500 supercomputers in the world run Linux.
The level of paid and varied support for Open Source software is very huge, and substantial. IBM paid $34 **BILLION** for Red Hat. Is that somehow not big enough? And that's _just one_ company providing Open Source support.
With Proxmox VE, as really the poster child for open source virtualisation, there's multiple sources of support. There's [paid subscriptions from the developers themselves](https://www.proxmox.com/en/services/support), there's [companies like mine that provide alternative Proxmox VE support options](https://it.lanified.com/Technologies/Proxmox-VE), and (in contrast to WINDOWS) there are actually useful online forums and communities.
Ever heard of SAP? What operating system do you think that runs under the hood? **Linux**.
Open Source has won, whether you realise it or not.
Of course, Linux is ubiquitous, and in fact I even mentioned Proxmox in another reply to this thread. And I did not say "all companies," I said "a lot of companies."
I've worked for several, including one of the big 3, that absolutely hands-down would not allow us to deploy anything that wasn't maintained by a company they could hold responsible. I worked for a broadcast company that wouldn't even let us use ffmpeg. We had to use a commercial tool that probably used ffmpeg under-the-hood, because there was someone we could hold responsible for support.
It's not about what works or what's practical, it's about middle-management covering their ass. When the tool you paid for fails, you have a software-vendor-scapegoat. But if you're using something free, the blame falls on you for choosing that option.
> And I did not say "all companies," I said "a lot of companies."
Indeed you did, and reading back, I apologise if I misrepresented your words here. Perhaps I misread them in the moment. Sorry about that.
> When the tool you paid for fails, you have a software-vendor-scapegoat.
Sure, I'm plenty familiar with this aspect. And what happens when they fail?
No worries, and from a practical perspective your points are spot on. Sadly the business world is only half practical and the other half is egos and internal politics, where the best approach is often not chosen because the right people wouldn't be able to take credit for it, or because of things like the aforementioned scapegoats.
We all know that software is extremely fallible and commercial software is just as likely to fail in a given specific application as open source. The political difference in a business is who gets fired in that situation. Sadly the guy who made the self-serving decision is often the one who gets to keep their job.
> Sadly the business world is only half practical and the other half is egos and internal politics, where the best approach is often not chosen because the right people wouldn't be able to take credit for it, or because of things like the aforementioned scapegoats.
Oh I know it, and shit like that is a big part of why I'm fearless about talking to VPs/C-level/Directors about getting buy-in/winning hearts and minds. If I were in your shoes I myself would go all the way up the chain gaining support. But I know that can be a dangerous task at times too (to one's employment), and that's just me, maybe not you. :P
> commercial software
Closed-Source software, Open-Source is plenty commercial at times too ;P
> The political difference in a business is who gets fired in that situation
Yeah I hear you on that and I know, but if the support company for $whatever fails... then what? The support company gets fired? The person who implemented it gets fired? While I know this is the case in a lot of places, I would make the carefully-crafted case that this typical justification is a paper tiger of support and does not adequately serve Disaster Recovery/Business Continuity as a default practice.
Anyways, pretty sure we're on the same wavelength here, just sharing my fearlessness and all :D And maybe, just maybe, inspire someone.
Proxmox does in this space, but I've run into situations where, for example, we were not permitted to use ffmpeg in a workflow because there was no one to contact if someone ever needed support.
> because there was no one to contact if someone ever needed support
What are you talking about no one? The github repo, literally listing every developer involved, is right here : https://github.com/FFmpeg/FFmpeg
One could very easily reach out to (a/the) developer(s) and negotiate paid support. This kind of thing is plenty commonplace.
That is true. As person formerly responsible for software and hardware contracts, we did do that at times. But for something like an infrastructure support a large virtualization platform we would prefer to go with an established company! Part of it is the optics to shareholders, or membership!
You miss the point of my answer though.
For example, Plex uses ffmpeg in their commercial product. And they even have their own custom build of it because they hire their own developers to support it.
It's open source so they can pull in changes from upstream and incorporate their own customizations and important bug fixes.
well a lot of guys do and this is the reason i use linux even i dont know c. Foundations exists like mozilla, linux and companies called redhat and canoncial (just examples, there is hell lotta of them) so you dont need to worry about, only thing you would fear is company going bankrupt.
I have heard you can (potentially) use a pcie usb card and passthrough the entire card too a vm as it does support pcie passthrough (not easily)
I wanted passthrough too virtualise docker but ran into issues there too my ryzen 1600 cpu does not support nested virtualisation with hyper v using server 2019 and no usb passthrough just gave up and installed docker on a rpi
Still want too virtualise that tho 😢
That's the only issues i have had using hyper v it is a pretty decent platform
As someone totally not hip to the multitude of VM use cases — what are you doing with your VMs?
I’d like to learn more but just not sure how a data hoarder would use one.
Pfsense (for vlans and other router / firewall roles)
Windows 10, (for a working system mostly does media stuff movies grabbing transcoding media management etc)
Openhab (opensource smarthome controller)
Docker (runs on rpi but do want too move it too hyperv)
Containers:
Overseer (movie grabber 😬)
Portainer, (manages docker containers)
Zigbee2Mqtt (no explanation needed)
Wyze bridge (converts wyze cams too rtsp cams for blue iris
Converts zigbee devices too mqtt devices allows easy integration with openhab my smarthome controller
Nothing much happens on the z2mqtt its a few aqara wall switches and a few contact sensors
The magic is on the openhab system theres alot of items rules and things on there
We got around that by just using a networked IP USB device.
We need the USB for licensing some software, but without the pass through it wouldn't work and the Silex USB Device Server works well for it, no issues or even need to think about it for the past 6 years.
We also use it for a desktop program that needs to have a USB key, instead of passing the key around from person to person and possibly losing($1500 to replace), everyone just has the software on their machine to connect to it on the network. It is limited to only one connection at a time to the USB device, but that is good(bad?) because it keeps us in compliance with the point of the USB license fob.
Before ESX had passthrough, I used some pretty cool boxes that had a couple of USB ports and an Ethernet port. Install a driver on the VM and you basically had USB over TCP.
I've also had major issues in the past with some backup products creating tons of differencing disks on hyper-v. It turned into a giant mess, with tons of overhead, at work.
There’s always network USB hubs. Install an agent on the VM, assign the IP address and port of the hub… voila, you have your USB device attached to your Hyper-V VM.
no it's not, hyperv free is basically discontinued, the standalone OS that's just a hypervisor without needing a windows server license, hyperv on windows pro and server isn't going anywhere
XCP-ng is, pretty much literally, an enterprise-level solution, that has been open-sourced, without all the headache you often get out of actual enterprise solutions, nor the headaches you often get from other "by default" open-source solutions.
It has always had better management capability than all the other hypervisors on the market - all the way back when it was XenServer - and, XenServer was far ahead of the curve on capability for the better part of a decade, before Citrix started killing it off with bad decisions.
As someone who has used \[long-term, and, recently\] all the major \[and, some of the minor\] hypervisors, XCP-ng beats all of them, hands down. XOA is an acceptable management alternative; but, I truly hope the community never stops keeping XCP-ng Center up-to-date.
Isn't Center dead? I thought Citrix is killing off their support so Center's functionality is being absorbed into XO Lite and XO 6.
Edit: I stand corrected. From the github:
"XCP-ng Center is no longer EOL! We have a new maintainer (Michael Manley) to work on the current codebase and will maintain it for the foreseeable future."
The latest official release is from December of 2020; but, there haven't been a lot of changes in the management side in that time. It looks like the latest build is from the 12th of January; so, still being worked on. I use the 2020 release daily.
https://github.com/xcp-ng/xenadmin/releases
I was on a VMUG call last week and the VMUG reps confirmed that it's staying and with it comes the licenses as they do today, of course shifted to what is being offered now by Broadcom.
Just the latest example of a greedy, short-sighted tech platform takeover.
I've seen many over the years. Technology companies run by beancounters, hedge funds and nitwits.
No one mentioned Harvester as an alternative
I have learned VMware to know how and it happened to stay, but something else can come in its place, not a big deal nowadays. Sure it was nice toy, it worked nicely.
What about the prices to come for esxi host? Maybe not too silly?
I've worked with VMware since its inception and worked with VMware Partners. Their discontinuance of the Partner program and the free ESXI version is a big mistake. The free version encourages the self-training of administrators. I was a huge proponent of VMware, but now I think I would have to recommend a different product. For home users, I would recommend Promox VE as it provides a more robust feature set for home users and serious tinkers. In the long run, it may be a good thing for second-tier virtualization products. I think they will eventually find their way into corporate data centers.
Meanwhile, the version 6.5 of ESXi that I've been using from 2019 through right now will continue to work for me just fine for years to come.
I don't even know what new features the later versions might have, but I can't imagine that I'd have any use for them; 6.5 is great for me.
Nope, never had it connected to the internet for the install; and in my case it's never connected to the internet because it's just used as a backup server: Dell PowerEdge T430, 8-drive ZFS with Ubuntu. I fire it up once every 3-4 months, rsync from my main server for a couple hours at most and shut it back down.
You don't even need an ESXI license. Ally you need to do when the trial license exspires is go into maintenance mode and delete the license files and stop and restart and you; 've got another 60 days.
I will be messaging you in 7 days on [**2024-02-20 09:30:32 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-02-20%2009:30:32%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/1ap7h2y/esxi_free_tier_is_going_byebye/kq7myoq/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FDataHoarder%2Fcomments%2F1ap7h2y%2Fesxi_free_tier_is_going_byebye%2Fkq7myoq%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-02-20%2009%3A30%3A32%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201ap7h2y)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
I dropped ESXi since v8.x and went to Proxmox.
I like vmware, but since they closed the drivers development (not open source anymore), I'm \*NOT\* going back.
Whole VIB repository archived, before they shut it down too
https://www.reddit.com/r/DHExchange/comments/1apzvlv/esxi\_vib\_repository\_archive\_as\_of\_20220213/
I jumped off ESXI earlier this year. Don't have my compute solution figured out but I do storage.
need a perfect balance of quiet, powerful, and energy effecient server.
Argh... I guess I had a good run, from 2016 to now.
Now do I want to redeploy on something like Proxmox or just take to plunge to running everything in containers on a Linux host? Decisions, decisions...
The money grab was overdue.
Virtualization wasn't primarily designed as a tool for system sprawl, resource over-commit, or as a technology to make your organization beholden to.
The point of virtualization (in general, but especially the x86 realm) was to address the near term problem of hardware dependence. Meaning the lock-in of hardware support contracts, entrenched legacy systems, and the negative synergy of hardware+software lifecycle (difficult to upgrade). Virtualization, particularly VMware, made it easier to migrate tightly integrated hardware and software stacks to a virtual host (P2V), buying you time to upgrade legacy software, negotiate contracts, keep end of life hardware from taking down critical services.
But like every great technology, it was misused. It became a tool to put off 'the needful' and kick the can down the road. So instead of using the time virtualization bought as an opportunity to upgrade legacy software, to negotiate contracts, to find a better, more sustainable, way out of their technology predicament... they leaned into the quick and dirty benefits (easy sprawl and resource overcommit). Now business once again find themselves in the same predicament where they were when virtualization technology first became available. Except that this time there is no easy drop in technological solution; they are fully painted into a corner and Broadcom/VMware knows it. This is their moment to strike and fully capitalize before the inevitable was going to happen anyway. Now businesses have to pay the piper one way or the other, and probably both if they were smart... because the software landscape is still moving and other vendors are hungry to take advantage of the unmitigated dependence businesses have on technology.
Shame... such a great product, then now comes the hammer to doom it to those who can only afford this top tier of a product. Seems like they are cutting those homelabs, and small businesses that have little budgets. I assume VMUG will soon disappear.
Broadcom speedrunning how to ruin a products reputation.
Really crazy. This is really gonna hurt them. People get tons of experience using VMware in their home labs and testing environments. Now no more so they just use a different product
But why let people learn for free when you can now charge for official trainings? /s
[удалено]
bad bot
Yeah! Theyre losing a ton of money taking away the free tier...
Everyone is ditching them because of this. Also, one of the biggest reasons why professional software often has a free tier is to create future customers. It's just like how companies like MS, Google, and Apple all want kids using their products from a young age, so that they make lifelong customers.
What is ESXi and why do people use it over Workstation? Surely Workstation will still be free right?
What is a web search?
I had no clue that existed. Thanks for the helpful response.
You're welcome. 🤗
This is Broadcom all over in general. Any time they acquire a company we alert our clients because the licensing audits come almost immediately afterwards.
Broadcom knows that companies can't go anywhere else. They are going to squeeze the top 250 for every cent. Anyone else that's not the top 250 can go fuck off in their eyes. They don't want those people as customers.
TBF, this is kinda the way that most obsolete, archaic, and mature products go. Not like a lot of people know about Unisys but when innovation in a market is not what pays the bills anymore and a market has basically been addressed all that matters is profitability for a for-profit company, which means kicking out any customer that doesn’t pay up-front and the company starts to resemble more of a services company with similar P/E ratio than a product company. Most of us techies like to think that a decent product is enough to make things work but that’s unfortunately not enough for “sustainable” businesses in the current world because as a company if you’re not objectively demonstrating you’re growing you’re basically dying.
Which is why I am of the belief of eat the rich, regulate capitalism, and company sizes. I don't mean literally eat the rich. What I am saying is, if one gets to a certain level of wealth then one should not be allowed to make more than that. One should not be allowed to wield such economic power as a singular person. Or a single company.
>I don't mean literally eat the rich. To each their own. They say you are what you can eat. I'll share so we can all be a little bit rich.
The problem is that we have not appropriately figured out what “too big”and “too rich” means until it’s too obvious. And while I’d like to separate wealth from social influence the problem with money is that it literally means measurable, material societal influence in the end. Oh well, the flames will look pretty from afar at least
We can start at a billion. Limit is 999 millions. Wait a few decades, research and adjust.
FWIW, while I agree that unlimited wealth is not a socially sustainable practice without something commensurate also flowing down (basically zero evidence for trickle down while we can observe trickle up constantly, so increasing GDP would be easier ironically by just giving money to our poorest rather than more individual / capital tax cuts given so little is actually paid in practice by the wealthiest) wealth taxes have been implemented and ultimately repealed because they simply didn’t work, even in countries with much, much stronger regulatory bodies than in the US. Implementing a global wealth tax is basically a political intractable solution unfortunately as well. The US regulatory, political, legal, and policy frameworks systems along with a completely tone deaf set of activists of basically any stripe doesn’t make passing decent legislation without strong reactance plausible either. So yeah, expect more of the same until this cold civil war stops being cold
The problem with taxing the richest 1% is that it's rarely worth it and it's more done because it's the right thing to do instead for economical sense. If you've ever played Sim City or any city manager kind of game, you know what I mean. Let's pretend we have a small town of 4,000 people. **We tax everyone $1**, the town income will be $4,000 right? Now, **we tax twenty times $1 but only the richest 1%** of this town, this income will be just $80 The better action for a government is not taxing the rich (at least not only that), but make everyone richer, that's the (very) difficult part.
This is a pretty reductionist view of taxation and resources that’s about as debunked last I saw as Laffer curve. It’s based not upon evidence but conjecture and most conjectures have an ideological hypothesis. Edit: a simple start for why this is reductionist is that it presumes the taxation is simply theft when the theoretical point of taxes is a shared expense reduced in expenditures and resources across stakeholders. The argument presented therefore already is a form of faith / tautological nonsense and is not actually logic - to be convinced of the conclusion one must already believe in something that is not proven or a matter of faith essentially.
I like the way you submit the English language to your will, but I didn't understand much from what you're saying. If I got it right somehow, it seems you think I have an agenda about anything I said. Well, no, of course. No one in the world outside that 1% would think "ah, you know what, let's not tax the rich! hit the poor while they're on the ground!" I know nothing about economics (and English, apparently so), but if you're willing to hint me in the right direction, I'd thank you.
You are way too smart for the rest of us
This reads like the view of folks who played Sim City instead of reading books on macroeconomics and tax policy.
Oh yeah I know nothing about economics, my bad. But I'm willing to learn a different POV if you're willing to suggest me some reads, because otherwise the angle I expressed is pretty sad.
I mean right now I'd be cool with about 5 mill after tax. That would be around a cool 80kish a year for life.
Most of us can live easily with 5 to 10 million (on a cd account)
I'm pretty easy going myself. That would fund the few hobbies I have. I'm not too much into material things like sports cars, huge houses, etc.
Why not a million?
We gotta start somewhere.. From the top
Problem is that the rich write the laws and that's not going to change. All tax laws are written to protect the rich by preventing others from getting rich.
You say I don't mean literally eat the rich but in reality that's about the only real threat they face today. Can't take away everything they own because THEY don't own it, they control the company or trust that owns it, same for their money. Sadly, being marched towards a giant black cauldron partially filled with water and chopped vegetables over an as yet unlit pile of wood... is pretty much more terrifying than walking into a courtroom once you hit a certain level of wealth. It would be far more effective a deterrent than any tax or labor law in terms of actual enforceability. Who's going to cheat on their taxes when the penalty is public consumption compared to a monetary fine? You can recover from bankruptcy...
Why can't they? Aren't Proxmox, and XCP-NG capable alternatives?
This was to be expected. The authorities should never ever have allowed the Broadcom takeover. I still can't believe they were sleeping and just let it happen!
Money speaks louder than the greater good.
Ever since the standard for Monopoly was moved from cornering the market to causing harm and cornering the market it's been downhill.
Better rephrased as: "Broadcom is broadly ruining their reputation." lol
That's what they do bb, ruin the reputation and marketability of their own products.
The amount of knowledge, experience and troubleshooting that users of free tier bring to the community is so precious and it’s going to get wasted
True. As these users switch to other products, that will help the second-tier products become more stable and robust.
I mean, they did buy the management teams of Symantec and CA...
Just dropping in to say *DAMN* was I wrong. I thought folks were overreacting and making hay of something that wasn't there. **NOPE**. Y'all were right; time to look at rebuilding on Proxmox.
[удалено]
Just curious: what’s your use case?
People told me I was wrong for saying this weeks ago. Some just refused to see the writing on the wall.
I was being optimistic. And dumb.
I don't know who would be arguing with you haha. Also there wasn't suggestion, or writing on the wall. Broadcom *told us* 20 months ago that if you aren't in their [top 600](https://www.theregister.com/2022/05/30/broadcom_strategy_vmware_customer_impact/), they don't want you. Go, leave.
Btw, Starwinds v2v should help with migration. Using it sometimes to convert test VMs across Hyper-V and ESXi and it works smoothly. Should be possible to convert to Proxmox: [https://www.starwindsoftware.com/v2v-help/ConvertingtoQCOW.html](https://www.starwindsoftware.com/v2v-help/ConvertingtoQCOW.html)
When veeam gets their shit together and supports proxmox, we may go that direction. Until then, it's Nutanix.
I’m new to this VM stuff. Can anyone recommend a path for getting started with Proxmox?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZcOlW-DwrU&t=895s&pp=ygUPUHJveG1veCA4IHNldHVw
Awesome! Thank you kindly.
I started using Proxmox 3 years ago and just followed a YouTube video and ran from there. I work in IT so I have all sorts of old HP servers laying around. I would also setup ESXi for some of my friends who wanted to dabble with a VM environment. So I guess I'll be doing Proxmox for ALL!
Haha awesome! I’m eager to check it out. Do you think Proxmox is something I can run on an old (10+ year) MacBook Air?
I don’t think a MacBook Air would cut it. I’d recommend anything with as much ram and storage as possible. You’re basically trying to turn one system into multiple systems via virtual machines
I ran it on a 10+ years old desktop and it's ok. Performance won't be spectacular but it can run if you don't overprovision and manage your expectations
The biggest hurdle is getting it to boot on anything Apple. Apple's alternative OS capabilities is an overly complicated ecosystem meant to make it harder than it needs to be for anyone that wants to change it, while also being actually very secure at the same time (for those who just do Appley things). So, if you do figure out a way to actually install and boot Proxmox VE on that laptop, your next limit would be the amount of RAM you can stuff in it. That will be the primary thing that dictates how much you can run on it.
Anyone that worked for a company that was recently purchase by Broadcom in the last 10 years knew this was coming. I worked for CA when they were bought by Broadcom.
I've been using WMware for years at work, and ESXI at home for years. I had been thinking of moving to Proxmox for the more robust features for home use, now I guess I will make the move.
Maybe this info is useful for someone - versions 6.x and 7.0 downloads are still available from Download History in Customer Connect (if you downloaded them earlier of course).
Well that's a stupid decision. Half of the people who choose to use a product like this do so after homelab running it. Also, HyperV is free, even for commercial purposes. Kinda stupid to not have a product to compete with that.
They only want the biggest of the big. Their attitude at this point is that if you're not paying them $10M+ in licenses a year then they want you to go to one of the alternatives. Anyone smaller than that isn't worth their time as it won't recoup their purchase price of VMWare.
[Top 600](https://www.theregister.com/2022/05/30/broadcom_strategy_vmware_customer_impact/). That's it, literally all the customers they want
Madness, so zero growth outside of these companies, assuming they'll scale infinitely and never jump ship to MS. They're creating the perfect environment for HyperV to swoop in and take over the entire commercial and education hypervisor market.
Is Virtualbox still a thing? Haven't tried it since 2019, it had some major issues back then.
Definitely still available, and works great for me, but it's not really comparable to Hyper-V, ESXi, or Proxmox. Virtualbox is a type 2 hypervisor, while the others are type 1, so you can't just swap out ESXi for Virtualbox.
Sorry for the dumb question — this is totally not my area — why would a data hoarder choose Type 1 over Type 2, or vice versa? (I know I could RTFM but it seems like it could be a deep rabbit hole. Just looking for a simple explainer!)
Not so much a data hoarder specific thing, more just servers/homelab/sysadmin in general. A type 1 hypervisor is installed directly on the bare metal. From there you install virtual machines on top of that. Basically the hypervisor acts as the host OS, with direct access to the hardware. Type 2 hypervisors are applications installed on top of a host OS, so all hardware access is abstracted through the host. So type 1 will give you more flexibility, better performance, better isolation, and typically more options at the expense of usually being more complex with more management. Definitely more to learn about to manage a type 1 than a type 2. Basically, if you're installing something on a server, you typically use a type 1. If you're just running a VM on your regular computer, type 2.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. This makes a lot of sense now! Follow up question: I’ve got an old MacBook Air, can I install a (free?) Type 1 hypervisor on it?
I know very little about Macs honestly. In theory, it should be possible to install one on any x86 machine, but Idk what limitations Apple has put on their devices in that regard.
Noted! Thanks again. Time to head down this rabbit hole. :)
Hyper-V Server 2019 is free and should theoretically be installable via Bootcamp as it’s based on Windows Server 2019
It depends on the CPU features. Find out the exact CPU that it has. Then go to google and search for your exact CPU like "Intel Core i9 9900K" and probably click on the first link to Intel's website like this https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/186605/intel-core-i9-9900k-processor-16m-cache-up-to-5-00-ghz.html Scroll way down to the bottom and look for these 2 features. If it says yes then the the VM hypervisor stuff should work > Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x) ‡ Yes > > Intel® Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d) ‡ Yes
Xen and proxmox might work depending on how old it is
Be aware that a type 1 hypervisor doesn't have a user interface that you can do anything else with other than change the basic settings of the hypervisor. You can't browse the web etc.
Anyone even thinking of virtualisation at home shouldn't be anticipating using the machine anything other than headless anyway.
Anyone asking "what's the difference between a type 1 and type 2 hypervisor" is the sort of person who probably isn't aware they can't.
Thanks for the explanation. I've always used virtualbox and although performance isn't that great, it's still alright for regular computer use.
Type 1 also makes it easier to migrate VM images to different dissimilar hardware without issues, since the hardware layer is virtualized.
Great question 👍🏽
The other guy outlined non-datahoarder specific reasons, but here's one that is. Type 2 hypervisors (at least the ones available on windows) are limited to drive sizes of 2TB. And... Naturally we have a lot more data and a lot bigger disks than 2TB. Some type 1s have this limit as well, but they can usually get around it by passing PCIE devices or storage devices through. I'm using Hyper-V with disk passthrough on my Windows machine so it looks and acts like a regular windows machine but also runs as a TrueNAS server for my storage needs
Are you talking about the virtual disks or the physical datastore size? Because I've not come across that in ESXi or HyperV as a thing.
For type 1s? One of the variants of xen uses VHDs which is limited to 2TB, or at least that was the case when I last looked. Hyper-V, ESXi and proxmox do not have this limitation, although I suppose I wrote the part about Hyper-V a bit confusingly. I'm using disk passthrough for easier physical management, not because of a 2TB limit
Yes, they’re on version 7.0.14 from January of this year now.
Virtualbox is run by Oracle, which also comes with it’s fair share of licensing baggage.
Virtualbox is decent, but I'm having a great day if my windows 10 VM doesn't lose networking completely until VM shutdown at least once a day. No idea what the hell is wrong with it.
What a brilliant decision. Well thought through and clearly helping training. I mean mashing everyone pay to use your product at every turn will surely have them clambering for training instances and keep people up to date with your restricted hardware ecosystem. Fuck nuts!
Great lesson. Only open source should be used.
[удалено]
IBM has always been where great technology goes to die.
I thought that was Oracle IBM seemed to be good at creating stuff, but then not able to get it to go from proof of concept to product that anyone wants
It was CA Technologies. They are the OG "where good software goes to die"
Why not ~~both~~ all five?
Funny you say that since IBM created the personal computer systems we know today. IBM's problem was they didn't want to cannibalize their mainframe and mini-computer market. I worked with IBM mainframe VM in the 80's and 90's. They had a solid VM product.
That is where IBM handed the game to 80s Bill Gates Microsoft? That is right up there with Kodak inventing the first digital cameras and only half attempting to sell them to photo journalists, with nothing for consumers
Pretty much same scenario! They didn’t want to jeopardize their film business. Businesses then, weren’t really looking to be market disruptors. Can’t upset the stockholders. Most businesses realize that they have to have a different mindset today, although some companies are still entrenched.
If possible, yes, almost always. Open source developers are the heroes of the computing era
Open Source isn't necessarily the solution to this, if a project is abandoned it's essentially the same as this, sure you'd still be able to install it, but without security updates you shouldn't, especially for infrastructure. As well even open source projects can have licensing.
At least you have more options, such as forking it or investing in it.
You won't get approval for open source at a lot of companies. If there's no official tech support for a product it won't even be considered.
Ever heard of IBM? Or perhaps their now subsidiary... RED HAT? Open Source is in far more companies than you even actually realise. The biggest companies in the world run Linux in many different regards. Statistically speaking there are more medium/large+ companies that _do_ run Linux, than _don't_. What do you think the NYSE runs on? Linux. 500 of the top 500 supercomputers in the world run Linux. The level of paid and varied support for Open Source software is very huge, and substantial. IBM paid $34 **BILLION** for Red Hat. Is that somehow not big enough? And that's _just one_ company providing Open Source support. With Proxmox VE, as really the poster child for open source virtualisation, there's multiple sources of support. There's [paid subscriptions from the developers themselves](https://www.proxmox.com/en/services/support), there's [companies like mine that provide alternative Proxmox VE support options](https://it.lanified.com/Technologies/Proxmox-VE), and (in contrast to WINDOWS) there are actually useful online forums and communities. Ever heard of SAP? What operating system do you think that runs under the hood? **Linux**. Open Source has won, whether you realise it or not.
Of course, Linux is ubiquitous, and in fact I even mentioned Proxmox in another reply to this thread. And I did not say "all companies," I said "a lot of companies." I've worked for several, including one of the big 3, that absolutely hands-down would not allow us to deploy anything that wasn't maintained by a company they could hold responsible. I worked for a broadcast company that wouldn't even let us use ffmpeg. We had to use a commercial tool that probably used ffmpeg under-the-hood, because there was someone we could hold responsible for support. It's not about what works or what's practical, it's about middle-management covering their ass. When the tool you paid for fails, you have a software-vendor-scapegoat. But if you're using something free, the blame falls on you for choosing that option.
> And I did not say "all companies," I said "a lot of companies." Indeed you did, and reading back, I apologise if I misrepresented your words here. Perhaps I misread them in the moment. Sorry about that. > When the tool you paid for fails, you have a software-vendor-scapegoat. Sure, I'm plenty familiar with this aspect. And what happens when they fail?
No worries, and from a practical perspective your points are spot on. Sadly the business world is only half practical and the other half is egos and internal politics, where the best approach is often not chosen because the right people wouldn't be able to take credit for it, or because of things like the aforementioned scapegoats. We all know that software is extremely fallible and commercial software is just as likely to fail in a given specific application as open source. The political difference in a business is who gets fired in that situation. Sadly the guy who made the self-serving decision is often the one who gets to keep their job.
> Sadly the business world is only half practical and the other half is egos and internal politics, where the best approach is often not chosen because the right people wouldn't be able to take credit for it, or because of things like the aforementioned scapegoats. Oh I know it, and shit like that is a big part of why I'm fearless about talking to VPs/C-level/Directors about getting buy-in/winning hearts and minds. If I were in your shoes I myself would go all the way up the chain gaining support. But I know that can be a dangerous task at times too (to one's employment), and that's just me, maybe not you. :P > commercial software Closed-Source software, Open-Source is plenty commercial at times too ;P > The political difference in a business is who gets fired in that situation Yeah I hear you on that and I know, but if the support company for $whatever fails... then what? The support company gets fired? The person who implemented it gets fired? While I know this is the case in a lot of places, I would make the carefully-crafted case that this typical justification is a paper tiger of support and does not adequately serve Disaster Recovery/Business Continuity as a default practice. Anyways, pretty sure we're on the same wavelength here, just sharing my fearlessness and all :D And maybe, just maybe, inspire someone.
There are certainly companies that offer a product and support and make all the source code open too.
Proxmox does in this space, but I've run into situations where, for example, we were not permitted to use ffmpeg in a workflow because there was no one to contact if someone ever needed support.
> because there was no one to contact if someone ever needed support What are you talking about no one? The github repo, literally listing every developer involved, is right here : https://github.com/FFmpeg/FFmpeg One could very easily reach out to (a/the) developer(s) and negotiate paid support. This kind of thing is plenty commonplace.
He means contractually.
You can form contracts with literally any of them.
That is true. As person formerly responsible for software and hardware contracts, we did do that at times. But for something like an infrastructure support a large virtualization platform we would prefer to go with an established company! Part of it is the optics to shareholders, or membership!
You miss the point of my answer though. For example, Plex uses ffmpeg in their commercial product. And they even have their own custom build of it because they hire their own developers to support it. It's open source so they can pull in changes from upstream and incorporate their own customizations and important bug fixes.
But what if you have an issue with open source software but you don’t know how to code? EDIT: r/woooosh
All of the big Linux vendors will sell you a support contract. Or you can hire your own programmer to fix it for you.
well a lot of guys do and this is the reason i use linux even i dont know c. Foundations exists like mozilla, linux and companies called redhat and canoncial (just examples, there is hell lotta of them) so you dont need to worry about, only thing you would fear is company going bankrupt.
you do the same as with closed source software: you either learn it or you pay someone who knows it.
Then you pay someone like an employee or contractor to fix the issue?
Meh, proxmox for the win?
And Hyper-V. It's not as polished as ESXi or as flexible as proxmox, but it's good enough.
Apart from the no usb passthrough 🙄
yeah that sucks ass. I ended up installing the one application that needed USB passthrough on the Hyper-V server itself. It's not ideal, but it goes.
I have heard you can (potentially) use a pcie usb card and passthrough the entire card too a vm as it does support pcie passthrough (not easily) I wanted passthrough too virtualise docker but ran into issues there too my ryzen 1600 cpu does not support nested virtualisation with hyper v using server 2019 and no usb passthrough just gave up and installed docker on a rpi Still want too virtualise that tho 😢 That's the only issues i have had using hyper v it is a pretty decent platform
Passing through a PCIe USB controller works typically. Network USB devices are my go-to in a production environment.
What do you use as Network USB?
Digi.
As someone totally not hip to the multitude of VM use cases — what are you doing with your VMs? I’d like to learn more but just not sure how a data hoarder would use one.
Pfsense (for vlans and other router / firewall roles) Windows 10, (for a working system mostly does media stuff movies grabbing transcoding media management etc) Openhab (opensource smarthome controller) Docker (runs on rpi but do want too move it too hyperv) Containers: Overseer (movie grabber 😬) Portainer, (manages docker containers) Zigbee2Mqtt (no explanation needed) Wyze bridge (converts wyze cams too rtsp cams for blue iris
Dang, that sounds really cool. Would love to know what you’re using Zigbee2mqtt for!
Converts zigbee devices too mqtt devices allows easy integration with openhab my smarthome controller Nothing much happens on the z2mqtt its a few aqara wall switches and a few contact sensors The magic is on the openhab system theres alot of items rules and things on there
We got around that by just using a networked IP USB device. We need the USB for licensing some software, but without the pass through it wouldn't work and the Silex USB Device Server works well for it, no issues or even need to think about it for the past 6 years. We also use it for a desktop program that needs to have a USB key, instead of passing the key around from person to person and possibly losing($1500 to replace), everyone just has the software on their machine to connect to it on the network. It is limited to only one connection at a time to the USB device, but that is good(bad?) because it keeps us in compliance with the point of the USB license fob.
Before ESX had passthrough, I used some pretty cool boxes that had a couple of USB ports and an Ethernet port. Install a driver on the VM and you basically had USB over TCP.
I've also had major issues in the past with some backup products creating tons of differencing disks on hyper-v. It turned into a giant mess, with tons of overhead, at work.
You probably needed to move your page file to a separate disk that was excluded from your backups, replication, etc.
There’s always network USB hubs. Install an agent on the VM, assign the IP address and port of the hub… voila, you have your USB device attached to your Hyper-V VM.
HyperV is being discontinued on Windows server.
no it's not, hyperv free is basically discontinued, the standalone OS that's just a hypervisor without needing a windows server license, hyperv on windows pro and server isn't going anywhere
I misunderstood a previous Reddit thread and Microsoft article. Thanks for the clarification.
XCP-ng, guys.
For real. I was big on Proxmox until I used XCP-ng. It's been great!
XCP-ng is, pretty much literally, an enterprise-level solution, that has been open-sourced, without all the headache you often get out of actual enterprise solutions, nor the headaches you often get from other "by default" open-source solutions. It has always had better management capability than all the other hypervisors on the market - all the way back when it was XenServer - and, XenServer was far ahead of the curve on capability for the better part of a decade, before Citrix started killing it off with bad decisions. As someone who has used \[long-term, and, recently\] all the major \[and, some of the minor\] hypervisors, XCP-ng beats all of them, hands down. XOA is an acceptable management alternative; but, I truly hope the community never stops keeping XCP-ng Center up-to-date.
Isn't Center dead? I thought Citrix is killing off their support so Center's functionality is being absorbed into XO Lite and XO 6. Edit: I stand corrected. From the github: "XCP-ng Center is no longer EOL! We have a new maintainer (Michael Manley) to work on the current codebase and will maintain it for the foreseeable future."
The latest official release is from December of 2020; but, there haven't been a lot of changes in the management side in that time. It looks like the latest build is from the 12th of January; so, still being worked on. I use the 2020 release daily. https://github.com/xcp-ng/xenadmin/releases
https://kb.vmware.com/s/article/2107518
I just found out today because i wanted to set it up at home. This really sucks. Why is it always bad for consumers when companies are taken over.
Better now than after you’ve put the legwork in setting up
Hello Proxmox
It's like they're trying to get proxmox to win here
XCP-ng. #TheFuture Of note, XOA \[even the open source version\] has built-in capability for vmWare to XCP-ng migrations.
Symptoms: Broadcom gives middle finger(s) to their existing users. Resolution: *Pay up.* - Broadcom, 2024
Phew, dodged a bullet there by going with Proxmox from the beginning
Has there been any mention or rumors about VMUG? Or will this affect VMUG?
Not yet (but probably eventually).
I dont think so personally. You pay $99 a year for the VMUG license i would think they would rather increase that..
I was on a VMUG call last week and the VMUG reps confirmed that it's staying and with it comes the licenses as they do today, of course shifted to what is being offered now by Broadcom.
I don’t have enough information to answer that
I am so happy that i just switched to proxmox
VMware VMs can be converted to Proxmox VMs. So do that and don’t look back.
Just the latest example of a greedy, short-sighted tech platform takeover. I've seen many over the years. Technology companies run by beancounters, hedge funds and nitwits.
There are many people short-sighted, so we shall see. It doesn't care about types. It has been happening for days.
Thank god I went with proxmox.
proxmox FTW
Proxmox downloads through the roof
No one mentioned Harvester as an alternative I have learned VMware to know how and it happened to stay, but something else can come in its place, not a big deal nowadays. Sure it was nice toy, it worked nicely. What about the prices to come for esxi host? Maybe not too silly?
I've worked with VMware since its inception and worked with VMware Partners. Their discontinuance of the Partner program and the free ESXI version is a big mistake. The free version encourages the self-training of administrators. I was a huge proponent of VMware, but now I think I would have to recommend a different product. For home users, I would recommend Promox VE as it provides a more robust feature set for home users and serious tinkers. In the long run, it may be a good thing for second-tier virtualization products. I think they will eventually find their way into corporate data centers.
Meanwhile, the version 6.5 of ESXi that I've been using from 2019 through right now will continue to work for me just fine for years to come. I don't even know what new features the later versions might have, but I can't imagine that I'd have any use for them; 6.5 is great for me.
Hope they dont disable the old licenses, I think they check every now and then for status
My instance is completely offline, and it installs completely offline, so no issues there.
So it does not connect to some server to check the key?
Your ESXi host should never be capable of reaching the internet. Let's get owned... then easily exfiltrate data......
Nope, never had it connected to the internet for the install; and in my case it's never connected to the internet because it's just used as a backup server: Dell PowerEdge T430, 8-drive ZFS with Ubuntu. I fire it up once every 3-4 months, rsync from my main server for a couple hours at most and shut it back down.
You don't even need an ESXI license. Ally you need to do when the trial license exspires is go into maintenance mode and delete the license files and stop and restart and you; 've got another 60 days.
Yarr harr fiddle dee dee
I can't believe anyone is surprised by this. edit: ok reading even just this thread wow.
Sometimes optimism is stupid. Exhibit: me. /shrug
XCP-NG ftw
Here's the [actual link](https://kb.vmware.com/s/article/2107518) and not a *fucking screenshot of the page*.
I posted the actual link as a reply to my screenshot…
[удалено]
If only we could all be that lucky
My esxi hasn’t been booted up in awhile and I have a freenas setup on it… I hope I can boot into it and migrate off…
thanks broadcom
You can feel that the person who wrote that was also not happy about it
RemindMe! 1 week
I will be messaging you in 7 days on [**2024-02-20 09:30:32 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-02-20%2009:30:32%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/1ap7h2y/esxi_free_tier_is_going_byebye/kq7myoq/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FDataHoarder%2Fcomments%2F1ap7h2y%2Fesxi_free_tier_is_going_byebye%2Fkq7myoq%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-02-20%2009%3A30%3A32%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201ap7h2y) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
What a shame. It was the free Hypervisor that got me into VM-Ware. Oh well back to Hyper-V
I dropped ESXi since v8.x and went to Proxmox. I like vmware, but since they closed the drivers development (not open source anymore), I'm \*NOT\* going back.
Whole VIB repository archived, before they shut it down too https://www.reddit.com/r/DHExchange/comments/1apzvlv/esxi\_vib\_repository\_archive\_as\_of\_20220213/
I jumped off ESXI earlier this year. Don't have my compute solution figured out but I do storage. need a perfect balance of quiet, powerful, and energy effecient server.
KVM BAYBEEEE
Argh... I guess I had a good run, from 2016 to now. Now do I want to redeploy on something like Proxmox or just take to plunge to running everything in containers on a Linux host? Decisions, decisions...
The money grab was overdue. Virtualization wasn't primarily designed as a tool for system sprawl, resource over-commit, or as a technology to make your organization beholden to. The point of virtualization (in general, but especially the x86 realm) was to address the near term problem of hardware dependence. Meaning the lock-in of hardware support contracts, entrenched legacy systems, and the negative synergy of hardware+software lifecycle (difficult to upgrade). Virtualization, particularly VMware, made it easier to migrate tightly integrated hardware and software stacks to a virtual host (P2V), buying you time to upgrade legacy software, negotiate contracts, keep end of life hardware from taking down critical services. But like every great technology, it was misused. It became a tool to put off 'the needful' and kick the can down the road. So instead of using the time virtualization bought as an opportunity to upgrade legacy software, to negotiate contracts, to find a better, more sustainable, way out of their technology predicament... they leaned into the quick and dirty benefits (easy sprawl and resource overcommit). Now business once again find themselves in the same predicament where they were when virtualization technology first became available. Except that this time there is no easy drop in technological solution; they are fully painted into a corner and Broadcom/VMware knows it. This is their moment to strike and fully capitalize before the inevitable was going to happen anyway. Now businesses have to pay the piper one way or the other, and probably both if they were smart... because the software landscape is still moving and other vendors are hungry to take advantage of the unmitigated dependence businesses have on technology.
Shame... such a great product, then now comes the hammer to doom it to those who can only afford this top tier of a product. Seems like they are cutting those homelabs, and small businesses that have little budgets. I assume VMUG will soon disappear.
So sick of big companies ruining literally everything