> Why is it important what kind of virtualization?
Because if I ran this, would have to manage it. Given that I have lots of virtualization to manage already, I would want it to use the same tooling for rather obvious reasons.
> is pretty much all everyone running their own hardware is looking for.
I don't think you talk to many people who do this, but as someone who manages 8 figures worth of hardware, I can tell you that is absolutely not true.
> The specs are damn good. When it is all top-of-the-line, inflexibility is kind of a mute point. Where else are you going to go?
To some hardware that actually fits my use case, that is managable in an existing environment? Oh wait - I already have that. I mean, seriously - do you think they're the only shop selling nice machines?
The value-add is all wrong, unless you are a greenfield deployment willing to bet it all on this particular single vendor, and your needs match their offering.
> lots of virtualization to manage already, I would want it to use the same tooling
I'm not saying you would want to, but maybe their expectation is that you'd plan to transition everything to their system. Either gradually as part of the normal cycle of replacing old hardware or all at once if you want to be aggressive.
If their way is actually better, then it might make sense. You'd go through an annoying transition period but be better off in the end.
The hardware options do seem limited, but maybe that would change if their business takes off and they get enough customers to justify it. They're definitely saying simplicity is a good thing, but maybe that's just marketing spin that sounds better than the alternative of saying they're not yet in a position to offer that flexibility.
I don't see details on the API, but it seems likely you could write a libvirt provider for it and use existing virsh tooling (Cockpit / CloudStack / ...).
Because if I ran this, would have to manage it. Given that I have lots of virtualization to manage already, I would want it to use the same tooling for rather obvious reasons.
> is pretty much all everyone running their own hardware is looking for.
I don't think you talk to many people who do this, but as someone who manages 8 figures worth of hardware, I can tell you that is absolutely not true.
> The specs are damn good. When it is all top-of-the-line, inflexibility is kind of a mute point. Where else are you going to go?
To some hardware that actually fits my use case, that is managable in an existing environment? Oh wait - I already have that. I mean, seriously - do you think they're the only shop selling nice machines?
The value-add is all wrong, unless you are a greenfield deployment willing to bet it all on this particular single vendor, and your needs match their offering.