But not on vmware, just zen and/or kvm with various management front ends.
VMware has always been a PITA, even in the late 2000's, we pivoted and bought several thousand physical machines for a new datacenter after they started to play tricks just weeks before we were going to turn up the DC.
They have always aspired to be Oracle like, where customers are hostages. Most people I knew who weren't stuck in the "Enterprise" trap moved to kvm/zen ASAP especially after the Westmere dramatically reduced the vm_exit() latency allowing for databases etc...
That was over 15 years ago, and outside of a very small number of niche use cases, tehre was no real argument to run container hosts on Vmware outside of a (IMHO) mistaken risk appetite.
It is really the fruit that ate itself, as had IT departments had a more data based risk assessment process, we would probably be heavily hybrid-cloud now. But the same Enterprise gravy train that VMware grew under killed them.
Shifting blame at great expense in licensing and agility to an _Enterprise_ solution was their jam...now Broadcom owns them an it is even worse.
Not in the F100. They're all VMs, all of the time, all on vSphere. Nutanix was the next best solution, with Hyper-V as a distant third. Hence why Broadcom ate them.
From what I hear and have seen, pre-Broadcom head-on VMware takeouts didn't go much of anywhere. But kubernetes-based (Kubevirt) products do seem to be having a degree of success.
100%. it was very hard (but not impossible) to compete against vmware in the virtualization space before the Hockening™; vSAN, vSphere and NSX were very very nice and super easy to use. nutanix succeeded more often than not.
orgs now are kind-of scrambling for alternatives. great for nutanix. better for the CSPs. also great for red hat (my employer) since we have openshift virt, which is based on kubevirt but is much easier to use and works nicely with the rest of the ecosystem.
Yeah, vsphere has a mile-long list of enterprise checkbox features that the sales managers can overwhelm the CIO's with on the golf course.
Kubernetes might have success, but AFAICS Kubernetes also sort of involves a new way of architecting applications (cloud native applications, 12-factor apps, microservices, etc.; whatever the buzzword du jour is). The idea with vmware was always to virtualize all those zillions of more or less idling physical servers, and get some snazzy management GUI to handle them all etc. etc.
Rearchitecting for containers is indeed a lot more effort and, indeed, one of the reasons for VMware's success was that it provided more efficiency without (at least initially) much in the way of operational changes.
But kuvevirt with Kubernetes does much of the same, especially for companies that are--or know they will--move to containerized workloads anyway.
kubernetes is where vsphere was circa 2010 or so. wide adoption with loads of room for growth and refining.
the vmware implosion + kubevirt gaining maturity is what will hyper-accelerate this.
nonetheless, it's a bit nuts that a vsphere alternative doesn't really exist for kubernetes. openshift, harvester and foss projects like portainer are close but not really the same thing. vsphere made it stupid easy to orchestrate vms at any scale with any level of experience. your cat could deploy a simple two-node vDC, and you could theoretically click your way through doing very very complicated things with your cluster (though you probably should).
esxi was silly easy to install most of the time also. provisioning kubernetes is finally (as of maybe three years ago?) pretty easy to do, but day two ops are still very command line. great for nerds like you and me; not good for former VIadmins who were suddenly thrown into the k8siverse.
this is even worse on the networking front. anyone who's messed with cilium or calico vs administrating NSX will know what i'm talking about. you can click your way through setting up a whole logical enterprise-grade networking fabric with vSANs, BGP, stateful firewall, the whole nine, all with near-linespeed performance throughout your vDC. cilium and calico, on the other hand, are powerful but have (to my knowledge) no real GUI equivalents.
storage is even worse. there's no vSAN frontend equivalent in the k8s landscape afaik.
This really seems only obviously true if you're counting docker/podman-desktop and similar dev tools which work via stashing containers in a VM. There are a ton of large scale kubernetes deployments made directly on baremetal.
