548
At this point, why would anyone do business with broadcom at all?
this post was submitted on 08 May 2025
548 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
69868 readers
3111 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Because they make all the cheap ethernet chips that go on motherboards.
Other than that, can't think of a good reason.
This is why KVM is a good option, or even Hyper-V for Windows hosts. The only problem with KVM Is graphical support for paravirtualized drivers is basic at best with no full 3D acceleration that I know of for Windows guests; virtio-win isn't exactly the best option graphically and QXL to my knowledge is even more lacking, but one can just pass a hardware GPU through over vfio-pci for that.
Unfortunately for Mac hosts, Apple has no KVM/Hyper-V equivalent so your best option for virtualization there is Parallels.
(and it's honestly kinda stupid that Apple can't build their own KVM equivalent into the Darwin kernel which macOS is based on)
There is a KVM equivalent on MacOS, Apple's Hypervisor virtualization framework.
KVM is just the kernel side, you need QEMU (for example) on userland. On MacOS you have now UTM.
I didn't even know that was a thing. Cool!
Proxmox is the way to go in businesses right now to replace Vmware
I would argue for Apache Cloudstack personally.
Though I have used and like Proxmox as well.
And virt-manager is pretty solid for hobbyist tinkering too.
Yeah I'd second that. It's good for discovering valid settings as you get start, and then once you want to do more complicated stuff, the XML option view becomes useful, and then if you want to try on CLI after all you can start using virsh to administer the same VMs.
At least that's how I progressed through the stages as I started messing with a Windows VM for a game that doesn't lend itself to hosting on Linux natively.
Threatening to sue your customers is such a brilliant business move.
It's also the business model of Oracle I think and they are wildly successful.
load more comments
(7 replies)
load more comments
(11 replies)
This is another good reminder to not use VMware nor VirtualBox for any reason.
load more comments
(28 replies)
I realize there's all sorts of Microsoft hate out there, mostly justified, but no one has mentioned hyper-v as a replacement for VMware. I've got a dozen or so machines running on a single VMware host and after the broadcom buyout decided to swap over, havent pulled the trigger yet as I'm using it to get a new server and wait for our support contract to end.
In the small/medium business space is proxmox a better bet?
Hyper-V could literally suck my dick all day and I still wouldn't use it if there's a non-microsoft option that works. Not interested in being the test group for any more of their shit or get rug-pulled at the worst moment.
I'd say that if you tend to like Microsoft products, then hyper v. If you tend to be annoyed by then but like Linux, then proxmox is great. It manages to be a good blend of approachable with a GUI but also having solid API and cli that didn't overly abstract things away from the underlying implementation
But if you aren't really a Linux person, then I'd wager hyper v is the right direction.
I haven’t yet set up proxmox, but yeah, I think hyper-V would work well in a small to medium windows shop.
The negatives I found probably don’t apply
- for large installations, it never scaled as well as VMware. We saved millions on licenses when we switched, but had to buy a lot more hardware. In particular we were doing software QA where we needed many VMs but they didn’t need much resources, and hyper-v just couldn’t scale in that direction. More standard use cases probably won’t have this problem, plus this was 4 years ago so I don’t know if anything has changed
- for special case installations, hyper-v was a horrible experience on my laptop. I had the resources, but couldn’t pass through usb devices, and it kept messing up my networking.
From my experience running heavily Hyper-V over the last 15 years, don't be afraid of it, it's worth the look. Especially for a single node like you're talking, no reason not to in my opinion.
load more comments
(9 replies)
Where would we be without predatory rent-seeking?
Someone's going to make a fortune migrating firms off VMWare onto open-source VMs.
Man could you imagine what proxmox would be if that project got just a tenth of the money VMware got?
Classic prisoners dilemma. Nobody wants to invest in proxmox because not enough people invest in proxmox.
Honestly I think if Proxmox got VMWare money then they’d become stuffed to the gills with business sharks and probably go the same route eventually.
That is not a Proxmox problem, that is a capitalism problem.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(14 replies)
Broadcom is where previously good softwares go to die.
Proxmox, Nutanix, Canonical and Incus must be quite happy with the new customers.
At first, I thought the products you were listening were "good softwares going to die". I was like "wut. Proxmox is fucking epic."
Proxmox is amazing.
load more comments
(2 replies)
We told them to go fuck themselves. We retain lawyer specifically in case we have legal concerns, and the way we use their products, price jack up would be so extreme that it’s entirely worth risking it while we migrate away.
view more: next ›