634
Remember:
There's no such thing as a perpetual license, there's only "until we change our mind" licenses
this post was submitted on 08 May 2025
634 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
69999 readers
4613 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The not owning anything is ridiculous. We need clear regulation that makes it so companies cant do bullcrap like this. If I buy something, I own it, period.
100% agreed.
Here's a relevant Louis Rossmann video where a US Senator (Ron Wyden) officially asked the FTC to look into issues like this. I sincerely hope something comes out of this.
At this point, why would anyone do business with broadcom at all?
Because they make all the cheap ethernet chips that go on motherboards.
Other than that, can't think of a good reason.
I realize there's all sorts of Microsoft hate out there, mostly justified, but no one has mentioned hyper-v as a replacement for VMware. I've got a dozen or so machines running on a single VMware host and after the broadcom buyout decided to swap over, havent pulled the trigger yet as I'm using it to get a new server and wait for our support contract to end.
In the small/medium business space is proxmox a better bet?
From my experience running heavily Hyper-V over the last 15 years, don't be afraid of it, it's worth the look. Especially for a single node like you're talking, no reason not to in my opinion.
I'd say that if you tend to like Microsoft products, then hyper v. If you tend to be annoyed by then but like Linux, then proxmox is great. It manages to be a good blend of approachable with a GUI but also having solid API and cli that didn't overly abstract things away from the underlying implementation
But if you aren't really a Linux person, then I'd wager hyper v is the right direction.
Proxmox is definitely on its way to become a viable replacement for sure. There's also OpenShift from Red Hat which could be worth a look at as well.
Openshift kind of incidentally does virtualization almost begrudgingly. Red hat started to try to be a VMware competitor with ovirt but find VMware customers too stuck in their ways, then abandoned it to chase the cloud buzz word with open stack, but open stack was never that good and also the market for people who want to make their on premise stuff act like a cloud provider is actually not that big anyway. So they hopped on the container buzzword with open shift and stuck libvirt management in there to have an excuse for virtualization customers that there is a migration path for them.
Meanwhile proxmox scratched their head wondering why everyone was fixated on stacking abstraction layer upon abstraction layer on libvirt and just directly managed the qemu. Which frankly makes their stuff a lot more straightforward technically, and their implementation is a solid realization of the sort of experience that VMware provides. In fact much more straightforward than a typical VMware deployment, and easier to care and feed since it is natively Linux instead of an OS pretending not to be an os like esxi. It also is consistent to manage, unlike VMware where you must at least interact some with esxi but that's deliberately crippled and then you have to do things a bit differently as you deploy center (which can be weirdly convoluted).
Hyper-V could literally suck my dick all day and I still wouldn't use it if there's a non-microsoft option that works. Not interested in being the test group for any more of their shit or get rug-pulled at the worst moment.
Another vote for Hyper-V.
load more comments
(8 replies)
This is why KVM is a good option, or even Hyper-V for Windows hosts. The only problem with KVM Is graphical support for paravirtualized drivers is basic at best with no full 3D acceleration that I know of for Windows guests; virtio-win isn't exactly the best option graphically and QXL to my knowledge is even more lacking, but one can just pass a hardware GPU through over vfio-pci for that.
Unfortunately for Mac hosts, Apple has no KVM/Hyper-V equivalent so your best option for virtualization there is Parallels.
(and it's honestly kinda stupid that Apple can't build their own KVM equivalent into the Darwin kernel which macOS is based on)
There is a KVM equivalent on MacOS, Apple's Hypervisor virtualization framework.
KVM is just the kernel side, you need QEMU (for example) on userland. On MacOS you have now UTM.
load more comments
(1 replies)
NUTANIX AHV BITCHES! Download The Nutanix Bible and start learning it.
Very surprised that this is the only comment in this thread mentioning Nutanix.
I stupidly bought a VMWare Workstation license when I first got on the Windows 11 train. Bright eyed and bushy tailed and all that rubbish. My experience was such shit that I abandoned it all for Linux and Virtualbox.
Fuck Microsoft, fuck VMWare.
qemu ftw.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›