spectVM said: Almost believable argument. However, we all know that is a pile of you know what. The client is already written and dependency on Windows isn't evil enough to impose the resources the web client needs. Those that have small low power compute units with 8-16GB of RAM are being pushed out.
At least I can depend on you to call a spade a spade. For all intents and purposes, there is no free 5.5 without using hacks and work-around to manage it. Web clients are for those who happen to be using a non-Windows device, like Android, when they don't have a PC handy. Even MACs run Windows to get their work done. I wouldn't have a use for vCenter if it were free. I've been happy with GhettoVCB for backups, and I haven't ever needed support, and that's been since 2008.
Forget about what I want, VMware is in no position to do this. VMware promoted their free version in August of 2008 with version 3.5 of ESXi, and a lot of people, like me, began using it, and VMware grew the market, from which they profited from quite handsomely. XEN and Hyper-V had free versions, but they weren't real, and soon people figured that out. Today, the reviews and benchmarks show the Hyper-V can outperform ESXi with Windows VMs, and Microsoft is giving away what Abhilash says I should pay money for. ESXi's saving grace in the reviews is the vSphere client. In 5.5, VMware has dropped the free version for all intents and purpose by removing the client, and the only thing that works is the old client using hacks and work-arounds. Thus, they surrendered the only advantage cited in the reviews, and replaced it with a client that is down on Hyper-V's level for functionality, that is not free. They would be way better off maintaining the 32 GB RAM limit like they have with 5.1.
I hope they aren't paying their leadership much at VMware. They are acting like Novell did. Today, we have Active Directory, easily the sorriest directory service application on the planet. The best is Novell's eDirectory. Novell's pursuit of the sorry web client resulted in 3 different clients to manage eDirectory, and angry users. The safest, common environment for a client is Windows. You can do nice web interfaces with ActiveX and Java, but even Microsoft ditched ActiveX in their browsers, and we all know that Java exploits are so common that people uninstall it from their browsers. HTML makes for one sorry interface. Novell was under the same pressure as VMware is today. Then, Microsoft said, if you have an up to date Microsoft client, you don'[t need a CAL. Today, Microsoft says the tools you need for Hyper-V, are the same as you need for managing servers. Later Microsoft changed so that you need a CAL for about anything. That will change for Hyper-V also. Whether VMware realizes it or not, they only have two workable options with regard to vSphere.
1. Restrict the free version like they did with 5.1
2. Change the license to make it free, but not for business use, similar to what they do for VMware Player. I has to be priced to where people see it makes more sense than free from the competition, and want to pay it. Microsoft does this every day. FreeBSD and Linux are free, but it's an expensive free. By the time you buy or put together everything you need for them, they cost far more than Windows server, and you still don't end up with the functionality. VMware needs to use the same approach with vSphere, and I don't mean SaaS either.
VMware is the eDirectory of virtualization. It appears VMware starts fumbling every time Microsoft says boo! Their fumbling spooks everyone else. FreeBSD 10 is writing support for Hyper-V. MAC is a FreeBSD fork, and they co-develop many things. VMware needs to get their act together, not for my sake, for their sake. They are giving away their mind share. I and many others hadn't even been thinking about Hyper-V until now because of our past disappointments. This situation caused me to start reading about it, and get me curious enough to try it again. I may be the low ground for VMware, but the low ground has a way of growing to be the high ground, as we saw the PCs displace the mainframes and minis for business applications, and how PCs are now the servers, and mainframes use PC parts and standards. It took Novell years of being distracted from their core competency to hand Microsoft the network server market. As a result, today, we have servers, hacked from desktop operating system, with a mickey mouse directory services, and a generation of IT people where their expectations have been redefined to the limited Active Directory architecture, and who are completely ignorant of the safety, and automation that was buried. We'll have to wait and see if VMware follows Novell's example. We can't blame Microsoft. They are simply exercising common sense and doing what a business coming from behind has to do to get their product into the next generation's hands, like they did with Windows, Office, and Server.
