Red Hat’s Virtualisation Pitch: Freedom or Just Another Lock-In?

Yes — we’re talking about VMware again.

Of course we are. Everyone is. And if you’ve followed our last post — “Nutanix is knocking, but VMware customers aren’t opening the door” — you’ll know we’re not shy about calling out the alternatives being thrown around right now.

If You're Feeling the Pressure, Read This First

There’s nothing wrong with exploring your options. If you're:

1. Seeing OpenShift mentioned in meetings

2. Wondering if “open” really means more flexible

3. Feeling unsure about what’s actually involved

So let’s talk about the latest one doing the rounds: Red Hat’s OpenShift Virtualization.

It’s being pitched hard as the modern, open-source answer to VMware — and Red Hat’s making no secret of their ambitions. In an interview with Light Reading, they said “a lot of customers were moving from VMware to OpenShift”.

They’re not playing coy. They’re playing for market share.

But here's the bit we think more people need to hear:

We think OpenShift Virtualization isn’t freedom.  We think it’s just a different flavour of lock-in and one that comes with plenty of hidden costs.

On Paper? It Looks Pretty Slick

Red Hat’s story is well-crafted:

1. Open-source, container-first, and Kubernetes-native

2. One platform for VMs and containers

3. A smooth pivot away from the “legacy” virtualisation model

But marketing language is one thing. Production reality is another.

And in reality, you’re not escaping complexity — you’re just moving into someone else’s.

Under the Hood: A Very Opinionated Stack

OpenShift Virtualization only runs inside OpenShift. That’s not flexibility — that’s a boundary.

Here’s what that means:

1. You’re locked into Red Hat’s Kubernetes distribution

2. You’re working within their lifecycle, tooling, and support model

3. You’re managing containers and VMs together, even if your estate isn’t container-native

The pitch may be “open,” but the implementation is tightly controlled.

As The New Stack put it:

“In the cloud-native era, lock-in hasn’t gone away – it’s just changed shape.”

It’s not better or worse than VMware — but it is just as sticky.

Remember what Reddit said…

Forget the pitch decks. Here’s the lived reality from teams working with it:

From Reddit’s /r/kubernetes:

“Nobody uses OpenShift just because… It’s known to be a bear to deploy and maintain.”

And from /r/vmware:

“OpenShift is more an application platform. It’s not a serious player in production-ready VMs...

It’s a bit like saying you want to replace Walmart with a taco restaurant.”

Is it really a natural home for traditional workloads?  It’s an application development platform, first and foremost and unless your team already breathes containers, that transition won’t be seamless.

1. It’s not lift-and-shift

2. It’s not plug-and-play

3. It’s not something you can trial over a weekend

This is a full operational rethink. With a new skillset to match.

And if you're already running a stable VMware environment, you’re not improving,  you’re starting over.

Where We Stand (and Why We’re Saying This)

We work with VMware. We trust VMware. And we know that most of our clients aren’t looking to reinvent their entire infrastructure overnight.

Yes, things are changing, But that doesn’t mean you need to panic-buy a new stack just because it’s open-source adjacent and wears a modern label.

Our job at R-Com is to cut through the noise and we’re seeing a lot of noise.

Let’s talk. We’ll help you:

1. Stay confident in your VMware investment

2. Evaluate Red Hat (or anyone else) with eyes wide open

3. Avoid being pushed into a migration that solves nothing

OpenShift Virtualization isn’t a silver bullet and it’s not a VMware replacement. It’s a different beast entirely and very much designed for a specific kind of customer.

If that’s not you?  You’re not missing out.

Talk to us if you’re navigating your options