Hacker News Reader

Comment by tjscott | Hacker News Reader

Red Hat built it in RHEV (or rather, bought it from Qumranet and rebuilt the .net in JBoss), but struggled in the market. They had an arguably better product than VMware, and better pricing, but VMware customers were hard to move, and Microsoft priced Hyper-V for Windows guests at cheaper than free.

View on HN

>>>but VMware customers were hard to move

were being the key phrase. Timing is everything, they Announced they were shutting down RHEV. AFTER broadcom announced they were buying vmware, seems like a terrible move in that light given that many vmware customers will be looking for a replacement in the next couple of renewal cycles.

Virtualization is a multi-billion dollar market. Even if you're a distant #2, it should be financially viable. The reality was, it was an awful product that nobody wanted. It could be free and it's worse than rolling your own solution directly on top of libvirt.

As a former potential RHEV customer, we had been warned about it 3 years ago by RH themselves. It is not like it was a huge secret and the decision was made a long time before broadcom's announcement.

Maybe has customers but it did not seem to be widespread knowledge outside, if it was known for year widely then I can not image why Veeam would have devoted developer time to support a product that announced its EOL just a few months after they released their support for it.

Seems odd.

Sorry, nothing Red Hat built was ever better than VMWare in the virtualization space. They never built a cohesive product experience, they could not get out of their own way.

Yes, this. I generally quite like RH stuff but RHEV was nowhere near VMware. I think it was the right move to shut it down and push Openshift VMs for hybrid workloads.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com