- dedicated to virtualization, done their way
- rather inflexible in hardware specs
- vendor-locked at the rack - if you have hardware from someone else, it can't live in the same cabinet
I guess if you just want a pretty data center in a box and look like what they consider a 'normal' enterprise to be, it might appeal. But I'm not sure how many people asked for Apple-style hardware in the DC.
The specs are damn good. When it is all top-of-the-line, inflexibility is kind of a mute point. Where else are you going to go?
> But I'm not sure how many people asked for Apple-style hardware in the DC.
Well integrated, performant and reliable hardware that runs VMs where you can put anything on it is pretty much all everyone running their own hardware is looking for.
Honestly I am surprised how many here completely misunderstand what their value proposition is.
Because if I ran this, would have to manage it. Given that I have lots of virtualization to manage already, I would want it to use the same tooling for rather obvious reasons.
> is pretty much all everyone running their own hardware is looking for.
I don't think you talk to many people who do this, but as someone who manages 8 figures worth of hardware, I can tell you that is absolutely not true.
> The specs are damn good. When it is all top-of-the-line, inflexibility is kind of a mute point. Where else are you going to go?
To some hardware that actually fits my use case, that is managable in an existing environment? Oh wait - I already have that. I mean, seriously - do you think they're the only shop selling nice machines?
The value-add is all wrong, unless you are a greenfield deployment willing to bet it all on this particular single vendor, and your needs match their offering.
I'm not saying you would want to, but maybe their expectation is that you'd plan to transition everything to their system. Either gradually as part of the normal cycle of replacing old hardware or all at once if you want to be aggressive.
If their way is actually better, then it might make sense. You'd go through an annoying transition period but be better off in the end.
The hardware options do seem limited, but maybe that would change if their business takes off and they get enough customers to justify it. They're definitely saying simplicity is a good thing, but maybe that's just marketing spin that sounds better than the alternative of saying they're not yet in a position to offer that flexibility.
> - rather inflexible in hardware specs
> - vendor-locked at the rack - if you have hardware from someone else, it can't live in the same cabinet
This describes legacy IBM platforms quite well. If they can leverage hyperscaling tech to be better and cheaper than what IBM is currently offering, that's enough to make it worthwhile.
This is a selling point - if it's actually better (which, why not? most of the existing virtualization management solutions either suck or are hugely expensive).
If it's not better, big deal? I'm assuming you could just throw Linux on these things and run on the metal or use something different, right? Given how much bcantrill (and other Oxide team members) have discussed loving open hardware, I seriously doubt they would intentionally try to lock down their own product!
> vendor-locked at the rack - if you have hardware from someone else, it can't live in the same cabinet
This is aimed at players so big that they want to buy at the rack level and have no desire to ever touch or carve up anything. It's a niche market, but for them this is actually a plus.
It's probably selling to the "Amazon-style hardware in your DC market", which I think should be fairly ripe. Building your own private cloud from parts defeats a lot of the purpose...avoiding your own plumbing.
If "Apple-style" means lower skilled-labor cost for maintenance - absolutely worth it.
A smart company would stay away from this kind of strong lock-in.