One of the things that's always bugged me about VMware is that their Horizon View product is VDI-only. Contrast that to Citrix XenDesktop which allows customers to use VDI, RDSH, desktop streaming, and the client hypervisor all in one product. (Well, maybe I should say "all in one license.")
I understand that in order to get all those options from Citrix, you have to buy the "Platinum" edition of XenDesktop, and recently now VMware Horizon View also gives you View Local Mode, and you can buy the Horizon Suite to add Mirage for physical desktop management, but regardless VMware has never embraced "real" RDSH support. Sure, even today's View can connect users to RDSH sessions, but that's RDP only and doesn't include many of the other View enhancements like ThinPrint-based printing, single sign on, etc.
Even the most recent version of View (Version 5.3—read my full analysis here), which added support to use Windows Server OSes at the VDI desktop OS, does not support Session Host. The Windows Server guest support in View 5.3 is used for "single user Server VMs"—a technique aimed at getting around Microsoft's restrictive licensing and SPLA options for Windows desktop OSes. It doesn't add traditional RDSH session support like Citrix XenApp.
It's interesting that Teradici themselves have added PCoIP support for RDSH "session-per-user," but that's via a product called Teradici "Arch" that you have to buy from them—not VMware. I asked Teradici why VMware didn't just bundle that technology into View, and they said, "You'd have to ask VMware."
So at this point the code exists. Teradici Arch has the option to plug-in to VMware's Horizon View connection broker. So why wouldn't VMware bundle that in? Why not even create an add-on option for 50 bucks a user or something to make it official?
Could it be because...
- VMware doesn't want to break their worldview that VMs-per-user are better than session-per-user?
- VMware believes the incremental density gains in session-per-user versus VM-per-user are not worth the headache of support?
- VMware believes that the "real" way to solve this is to make VM-per-user as cost effective as session-per-user, so why bother?
- VMware believes that session-per-user is old school, so why take a step back?
- VMware doesn't want to pay Teradici's licensing fee?
- Something else?
What do you think? Any ideas about why VMware is ignoring session-per-user? And do you think it will ever change?