EXSi Host free version



  • Hi everybody

    i want to try an EXSI and learn about the virtualization technology, but first of all can i use this OS for free or should i pay for a license because i heard that they have a free limited version ???



  • ESXi Free is completely free. Many SMBs use just the free version. However, you really should never use the free version, or hardly ever. The value to VMware's product is completely in its expensive, non-free versions.

    Why are you looking to learn VMware instead of HyperV or XenServer which are both completely free for all versions and far more appropriate for an SMB and nearly any company implementing a new virtualization program today.

    Make sure you read this: Is VMware Done in the SMB?



  • @IT-ADMIN said:

    first of all can i use this OS for free

    Just a point of clarity, ESXi is a hypervisor, not an OS. An OS is what you install on top of the hypervisor.



  • If you do try anything with VMware ESXi in any version, make sure you are not installing to hard drives:

    http://mangolassi.it/topic/5392/why-we-run-vmware-esxi-from-sd-or-usb



  • @scottalanmiller said:

    @IT-ADMIN said:

    first of all can i use this OS for free

    Just a point of clarity, ESXi is a hypervisor, not an OS. An OS is what you install on top of the hypervisor.

    i call it OS because we burn the ISO image and boot from it and we get an OS over a hardware not over a software



  • @scottalanmiller

    @scottalanmiller said:

    ESXi Free is completely free. Many SMBs use just the free version. However, you really should never use the free version, or hardly ever. The value to VMware's product is completely in its expensive, non-free versions.

    Why are you looking to learn VMware instead of HyperV or XenServer which are both completely free for all versions and far more appropriate for an SMB and nearly any company implementing a new virtualization program today.

    Make sure you read this: Is VMware Done in the SMB?

    thank you very much for your suggestio, i will have a look on these technologies as well



  • @IT-ADMIN said:

    i call it OS because we burn the ISO image and boot from it and we get an OS over a hardware not over a software

    Lots of people call it an OS, but it is not an OS. What you are describing is a hypervisor.



  • @scottalanmiller

    @scottalanmiller said:

    @IT-ADMIN said:

    i call it OS because we burn the ISO image and boot from it and we get an OS over a hardware not over a software

    Lots of people call it an OS, but it is not an OS. What you are describing is a hypervisor.

    lol, i saw your long debate in spicework with the other guy about "hypervisor VS OS"



  • I am curious to Scott's reasoning on that... Post a link to the SW thread?





  • scottalanmiller is the winner
    it is an ***Hypervisor *** not OS



  • @dafyre said:

    I am curious to Scott's reasoning on that... Post a link to the SW thread?

    It's neither my reasoning nor my opinion - it's just basic "what is an OS" stuff, not a concept originated by me in any way. A hypervisor lacks the things that something needs to be an OS. Just like how when you load a video game onto an NES, you don't say that there is an OS and a video game, it's an OS-less system as it doesn't provide a platform for general computing.



  • I haven't read the other thread yet... But if you define an OS as something used for general computing, then no, the ESXi is not an OS.

    That being said, I'm going to go read the other thread, lol.



  • @dafyre said:

    I haven't read the other thread yet... But if you define an OS as something used for general computing, then no, the ESXi is not an OS.

    That being said, I'm going to go read the other thread, lol.

    Basically if you don't, then things like Boot Loaders would be an OS too.



  • Wikipedia: An operating system (OS) is software that manages computer hardware and software resources and provides common services for computer programs.

    The key is "common services for programs." Boot loaders, video games and hypervisors don't do this. They run, at most, one application and normally are the application themselves. They aren't platforms for programs like an operating system is.



  • what about packaging firewalls like pfsense, can we consider it an OS or what exactly ??



  • @IT-ADMIN said:

    what about packaging firewalls like pfsense, can we consider it an OS or what exactly ??

    It is an appliance. pfSense is a network security appliance, not an OS. pfSense runs on FreeBSD which is an OS.



  • Ok thank you for the info
    i remark from your thread and answers that you give much importance to terms and names,



  • @IT-ADMIN said:

    i remark from your thread and answers that you give much importance to terms and names,

    Correct terms and names are always important, but in IT they are far more important than in most fields (maybe not as much as medicine, but similar.) A tiny misuse of a word could result in a big disaster (I've seen this many times.)

    But even when using a term or misunderstanding one doesn't cause a big problem, it does represent a place where there is a lack of understanding. In a case like this one, calling HyperV or ESXi an OS causes no harm at all. Everyone knows what is meant and there is no mistake.

    But it shows a place where there is a potential for misunderstanding later. Possibly if someone is looking for an OS, do we know what they need? How do people interpret statements like "an OS should never run on bare metal" if anything we put on bare metal is considered an OS? It is through the accurate and precise use of terms that we convey meaning and intent. Without that accuracy many best practices, ideas or similar might be interpreted very incorrectly without anyone realizing that there was misunderstanding.



  • do we should be careful regarding this matter ?, because what is important to many people is to make other people to understand them regardless the terms



  • @IT-ADMIN said:

    do we should be careful regarding this matter ?, because what is important to many people is to make other people to understand them regardless the terms

    If terms are not used accurately, how can you ever be sure that they did understand?



  • ok i got it, sorry i post the last question before seeing your last post



  • Just because we use terms correctly doesn't mean that people will understand, but if we use them incorrectly we introduce misunderstanding. The more important understanding is, the more important correct terminology is.



  • Often, understanding a term, means we understand a concept. Misusing a term often highlights an opportunity for more deeply understanding a concept. Like in this case, in multiple communities, an opportunity arose for many people to learn was an operating system actually is rather than just making assumptions based on common usage. This should allow all of those people to now better understand discussions around operating systems in a way they could not have before.

    But even moreso than that, by understanding what an operating system is, what a hypervisor is, what alternatives are it should increase the mental lexicon used to imagine ideas and create theories. Simply by expanding the terms from being fuzzy, overlapping or loose concepts into concrete ideas it should allow for more expressive understanding and ideas around those concepts.

    For example, just by knowing what a hypervisor and operating system are it naturally gives us the ability to understand much about them and their relationships with each other and other things.



  • i remark from your speech that you are philosopher more that IT person, lol



  • really the way you write is very eloquent



  • @IT-ADMIN said:

    really the way you write is very eloquent

    Thank you. 🙂



  • @scottalanmiller said:

    @IT-ADMIN said:

    really the way you write is very eloquent

    Thank you. 🙂

    you are welcome