From the, "Well I'm glad we got that cleared up" department, I've received multiple calls and emails about my article from yesterday called "VMware's recommendation to manage physical and virtual desktops differently is WRONG."
When I visited VMware a few weeks ago, they asked me where I got my information because some of my facts were sometimes wrong. I was surprised that I hadn't heard that from them before, because over the past 12 years as a writer I've always been quick to fix a fact, publish an update, or even write an entire new article explaining that I was wrong. (And vendors are usually the most vocal with corrections.) So I encouraged VMware to keep me in the loop when it comes to factual data in my articles, telling them they can use a virtual "bat phone" to call me with updates.
I didn't have to wait long, as a few people at VMware took issue with some things I wrote in that article about Mirage and View. We had a briefing phone call on Friday, February 15, and my article came out ten days later on February 25. When they called me yesterday we discussed "facts" of that call. That's one of the things that's nuts about this job that I never envisioned—that two people can remember things so completely differently less than two weeks later.
In this specific case, in my article I had originally written that VMware was being shady by not disclosing the real reason that Mirage couldn't be used in View. My recollection is that they didn't say why at all during their presentation, rather it was only when I asked that they said it was because the consoles weren't integrated and that they wanted to not deliver a product with too many consoles. I remember that I didn't think that was the real reason since I knew of customers who were having performance problems, so I thought the console thing was just a cover. So I asked about the performance and that's when they said there are scalability limits and that while Mirage does work with View, they don't recommend it at scale.
So the "facts" I remember are that (1) they didn't mention why you couldn't use them together at all, then when I asked they said (2) it was because of the consoles, then when I asked more they said (3) it didn't scale and they don't recommend it for performance reasons. So to me, I remember the facts as them not sharing this until I asked multiple times, which is what I wrote in the article.
VMware's recollection of the exact same conversation is different. They look at it more holistically and say, "Hey, when you left that phone call, you had all the information. We tried to be as clear as possible on that call, and if you had heard that it wasn't scalable then you should have told us that up front."
So was it me who was being shady for not telling them what I heard? Was I to expect that they would lead with performance problems and talk about them if I didn't ask? I don't know...
This is what's tough about this job. If I write a statement like, "VMware was being shady before admitting performance scalability issues," is that "factually" correct or not? It's kind of funny because I write something like that and they use the "factual error Bat-phone to Brian" to send the correction, "Fact: we were not being shady."
VMware's correction about their support of using Mirage inside of View
The point of this article is not to bitch about VMware or to say I deserve some kind of blogger Pulitzer for thinking about this stuff, but rather I did want to publish VMware's view (har har!) on the whole thing.
In that article from yesterday, I wrote, "they're saying that you should NOT use Mirage to manage your View VDI desktops!!?! That's crazy!"
VMware representatives believe that statement is factually incorrect, saying:
"We do not say to not use Mirage with View. We tell prospects that View does not support Mirage right now. This is a completely different statement."
I have to admit that I don't 100% understand what this means. I think their point is that I'm saying "do not use Mirage with View," and they're saying, "it's not that we're saying not to use it, it's just not supported."
Or maybe it's the whole "right now" part? They're mad that I'm making it seem like VMware's whole strategy is to have two separate ways to do things, and they're saying that their strategy is to have one way to do things, it just doesn't work right now. (Though if that's the case, we're in agreement with the way my article from yesterday ended. I said that as soon as Mirage is ready to go for View desktops then let 'er rip and use Mirage for VDI, client VM, and physical desktops. We just don't agree on whether that means you should wait to purchase it or not.)
I guess at the end of the day, VMware and I both believe that they have a good strategy, so at least there's one "fact" that we can agree on. Now can they execute on it? (Fact: They believe they can.)