If I were, perhaps it's because I'm not seeing any of the real stuff here.

You're full of hindsight bias.

It's like saying we CHOSE Linux and calling us dumb because we weren't doing hybrid Linux/FreeBSD the whole time when a good 25 year run ends, and not even ends, gets more expensive. Nothing you can say makes that 20+ year run a bad bet. It was the right decision then, it still was right up until Broadcom's uncertainty.

Why are you even talking about business continuity, nothing is shutting down, business is uninterrupted. Migrating from VMware NOW looks just like migrating from VMware ten years ago. A lot of time and effort to move to an inferior product (no hard feelings proxmox). The higher cost makes the inferior product more palatable, so we'll switch. That doesn't rewrite history and make running two OS, two switch vendors, two fabric vendors, two storage vendors, two server vendors, two virtualization vendors, two database vendors, two full suites of automation and monitoring tools make any sense. That's a lot of overhead you have to pay continuously that doesn't pay itself off unless one of the vendors is a bully. Now we know Broadcom is a bully, and that's the treatment they should get.

Vintage VMware from the early 2000s is still a better product than the alternatives today, but if you've only ever used Fisher-Price IT in the cloud rentals I guess you wouldn't know what to even do with a server.

Please explain what locked in to VMware means. They're just VMs. Exporting disk images and VM definitions is easy. What makes switching hard is all the other platforms are absolutely terrible.

There's nothing anybody wants to migrate to. We would have already done it already. Or other people would have, and there would be a comfortable split in the market. VMware had the lion's share of local virtualization because it was the only platform that didn't suck ass. That is the tragedy.

Go use one of the alternatives guys, now blow it out from your lab to thousands of VMs and many teams of people that just need to get their job done. They suck, don't lie. We export VMs back and forth from VMware to virtual box to AWS AMIs alllllll day, this is routine. Moving a vm or installing a new one and migrating applications to another OS is work, but it's not the barrier, and there's nothing particular to VMware preventing any of that. We just don't want to. AWS costs waaaaay too much for what we get out of our own hardware, so we have to decompose everything and look at it all sideways squinting to make the math make sense where before we'd just give it a little extra ram and not think twice. All the clouds suck like that, just running VMs on them is expensive. All the VMware alternatives for your own hardware ssssssuuuuuuuucks.

The guy says it's good, implied culling the herd, then explained that as the process where you kill your best bull. I'm not waiting around to hear the explanation of that crazy =)

How does that begin to make sense. If you kill the fittest animal because you could squeeze more money out of its steaks the fastest, you are left with a less fit herd. You repeat that and you have a herd of undesirable animals. Even your cattle analogy shows the bulls are not interchangeable, because you're filtering for fitness in a way that by definition leads to a worse group. The company you can squeeze the hardest fastest had the most viable product and reliable customers. Repeat that and it doesn't matter where the engineers go or which bulls fuck which cows, you're by definition filtering the best outcomes out, because that's the easiest most efficient juice to squeeze.

It's "good" for capitalism as in it's squeezing the most money the fastest, but if you always cut the healthiest trees, it's not good for the forest, which means it's not a benefit to a healthy market, which means that behavior is not good capitalism. Sorry there's just thousands of analogies that make this plainly obvious, including your own.

Don't pay for nice things. Great lesson.

Stupid and inflexible?

20 something years of ESX dominating, 20 years for anyone else to catch up, and the alternatives are still ass.

Stupid and inflexible because people preferred an affordable product that can migrate running processes seamlessly between servers, with native storage clustering and enterprise grade capabilities all _push button simple_ enough for one person to manage the whole operation out to an absolutely ridiculous scale, and was perfectly fine for over two fucking decades. I regret _none_ of that. Who wants to go back in time and double down hard on Xen virtualization, seriously? It's not even a funny joke, nobody wants that.

What do you have to show for that time, what virtualization platform would you put your name on and market if you could. Could you compete what you have today with ESX 2.0 and Virtual Center 1.0 from 2003 at an affordable price. You could not. 2003 VMware is literally a better product than every virtualization product available today, with the exception of hardware virtualization features that didn't exist yet, OK, so let's just say 2005 then. 20+ year old software has better functionality and usability than alternatives today, and frankly it's sad.

As Eric Raymond (ESR) says, AI is a force multiplier. My elaboration: If you are good at what you do, it will let you do accomplish more good stuff faster. If you are not very bright, AI will let you be not bright more efficiently, but it won't make you bright. It's just a tool. It needs to be utilized correctly. There is no shortage of things in this world that can do tremendous damage if not used properly. AI is nothing new in that regard.

"AI slop" is so 2024. That argument isn't valid any more.

I'm surprised you didn't use the word "slop". Spewing a bunch of slogans that would have to be more clever to make it on to bumper stickers makes you look like the people you are complaining about. There are legitimate criticisms to make about AI, and ways to support and defend those arguments. You are not doing that.

Popular with Linux demographics... you mean Steam Decks right.

That sounds like malarkey. What people love to do more is dump on other people, and what they can't help doing is trying to rationalize. They also on average don't spend much time thinking. So if you give them some missing blanks, they will fill them in whichever way makes them feel good.

Simple experiment. Put a garage sale sign out when the forecast shows some rain. The largest group of people think haha fucking idiot. Followed by people think maybe it's just in case or things might look better on Sunday. Then you have people thinking it's all just to fuck with them personally. In the last and smallest bucket you have the correct answer, the forecast was not even looked at; they were too busy planning a garage sale.

The reason dumb things like Hanlon's Razor and Buy Low Sell High work and need to be repeated is because of human nature. It's not because they're particularly brilliant axioms.

Yup and you can tap a button to use a cloud instance in ChatGPT/Codex, it's built right in. Setup GitHub once and do interesting things from a remote container.

People still need to use agents with their local files. It's the system you're working from, and unless everything you do is software development shaped and on a git server then the agent would probably need access to your local environment for you to do anything with it.

Sometimes we run agents in containers, and sometimes that's super inconvenient.

It's not a bad idea to make a separate local account though, and use a git remote for coordination like you would with a coworker. Even with that I'm still going to use AI from my own account while I'm working there though. There's really no excuse not to have strong sandboxing for processes inside an account.