Among the options available as alternatives to VMware, OpenShift stands out with its extra utility for developers. But the usefulness of OpenShift is a double-edged sword, creating issues when it’s generalized. One of the key challenges we’ve seen is the tension between virtualization teams assessing OpenShift Virtualization as a VMware replacement and OpenShift platform teams focused on application modernization and supporting developers.
The Distinct Use Cases of OpenShift
Even though both OpenShift Virtualization and OpenShift Container Platform share the OpenShift underlay, their use cases, operational models, and management are very different. Enterprises should recognize these differences and let their virtualization teams evaluate OpenShift independently from developer-centric OpenShift platform teams.
Here’s why:
Different Management Needs
- VMware replacements need a stable, predictable virtualization layer managed by dedicated teams.
- OpenShift, when used for application development, is often managed as a multi-cluster, fast-turnaround environment meant for developer agility.
- The two environments will likely have different lifecycles, change management policies, and dependencies.
Virtualization Stability vs. Kubernetes Agility
- Teams managing virtualization focus on high availability, predictable networking, and stable storage configurations for workloads that call for a traditional infrastructure environment.
- Developer-driven OpenShift environments prioritize CI/CD pipelines, rapid scaling, and microservices flexibility, which aren’t key drivers for virtualization teams.
Bare Metal vs. Container-First Thinking
- Many enterprises looking at Kubernetes-native virtualization are better served by treating OpenShift Virtualization as a direct VMware replacement rather than trying to integrate it into broader Kubernetes orchestration strategies.
- Kubernetes can exist within the virtualization layer, allowing developers to utilize VMs through OpenShift Virtualization. However, this doesn’t mean that administrators should manage the virtualization infrastructure as a dynamic Kubernetes fabric.
The Two-Platform Model
Rather than forcing a single approach, organizations should treat each use case as its own layer:
- OpenShift Virtualization as a dedicated VMware replacement — delivering a stable, infrastructure-focused environment managed by virtualization experts.
- OpenShift for application development — optimized for multi-cluster, developer-driven Kubernetes workloads.
This separation aligns with the broader trend of different operational silos managing Kubernetes, with varying lifecycle policies, upgrade timelines, and team ownership.
Benefits of Separate OpenShift Processes
By letting virtualization teams view OpenShift as a VMware replacement rather than a direct extension of OpenShift developer platforms, enterprises can:
- Ensure a smooth transition from VMware by focusing on virtualization-specific needs
- Prevent conflicts between teams with different operational goals
- Leverage Kubernetes within the virtualization stack without forcing infrastructure teams to adopt Kubernetes-based management practices prematurely
- Maintain flexibility for future changes while keeping current workloads stable
Conclusion
The push to replace VMware is an opportunity to rethink virtualization. OpenShift Virtualization is a powerful alternative, but only if enterprises allow their virtualization teams to handle it separately from the developer-focused side. By treating them as independent layers, organizations can modernize their environments while keeping operational efficiency and stability. To kickstart the process or discuss what this might look like in your environment, schedule a meeting with our Sales Engineering team now!
Give your virtualization teams the room they need to evaluate for themselves. Your infrastructure will be better for it.
