This should have been published a couple of weeks ago and is really old news but I thought it interesting enough to show.
I have been away for a week and it seems little there has been an invasion of evilness at Palo Alto.
I think that they really need to have a word with their PR/Marketing or Legal Dept. this sound strong? maybe so, however read on.
Firstly: there was this announcement from Veeam regarding they being forced to drop support for ESXi Free from their Backup solution. 3.5
so what message does this give out.
well I think that the words of Alex Barrett sum this up so I will repeat them here:
Alex Barrett’s SearchServerVirtualization.com VMware clampdown on free ESXi may prompt defection to Hyper-V article presents VMware’s reasons for making a request to Veeam to stop supporting Veeam Backup with the free ESXi versions. Quoting the interview from Barrett’s story:
“We provide certain APIs [application programming interfaces] and methods particular to the virtualization environment,” said Patrick Lin, the vice president of product management for VMware’s server business unit. By offering access to the hypervisor via a preferred set of APIs, “our intent is to provide a level playing field in the basis of backup,” he said.
But Veeam did not use VMware-approved methods to develop its product, said Parag Patel, VMware’s vice president of alliances. “We’re not exactly sure what they did, but it didn’t seem sound,” Patel said. “For us it’s a question of what’s built and how it’s built. … To be perfectly honest, we didn’t want to be associated with it because it wasn’t satisfactory.”
Perhaps more to the point, Veeam Backup is inconsistent with VMware’s vision of free ESXi deployments. “It’s meant to be a starter … walk before you run,” Patel said. “It’s not supposed to be for complex software environments.” With free ESXi, “you shouldn’t need a whole lot of other tools to make it work.” If you do, you are free to upgrade.
On the other hand, Barrett’s interview also helps confirm the idea that VMware does not wish to develop free ESXi
As Rich Brambley further states
I’m not a developer and I have no idea about the restrictions of a technology partnership agreement. So all I have now is questions.
- Why are there undocumented APIs available to use in free ESXi if they are not preferred?
- Why this contradiction now from a history of encouraging the virtualization community, including VMware’s own engineers, to develop alternatives to VMware’s preferred management methods? Barrett interviews Veeam in the story as well, and Veeam’s believes that adding advanced functionality to the free products provides less motivation for customers to upgrade hypervisor versions thus reducing VMware profit.
- Are the Veaam engineers that much more resourceful that only Veeam was able to uncover these APIs? As a matter of fact, VMware admits they haven’t figured out what Veeam did either.
- Why view Veeam’s product unsound and be concerned about association with it? Maybe if VMware’s free ESXi strategy was different Veeam’s engineering could have been called innovative
The wish to create tools that can run against Free ESXi really started after VMware recrippled the RCLI into being Read Only after they mistakenly released a Read/Write version with 3.5 U3 and everbody rejoyced, then went and resealed it with the release of U4.
Now I can understand why VMware may want to cripple ESXi Free, as it will divert revenue form their Costed ESX and ESXi prodcuts. however as their competitor offer free to download versions of XenServer 5.5 and Hyper-V Server 2008, both of which are or will be more feature rich than ESXi Free. It just seems like an invitation to use the alternatives. Read the entire article, however Barrett makes the point that VMware’s decision appears to mean that they do not position free ESXi as ready for production use and this could ultimately drive current technology partners, consulting partners, and customers to build SMB virtual infrastructure solutions around the competition’s hypervisors.