A great point regarding mainframes, but isn't it somewhat irrelevant given that Oxide's computer is x86 and mainly (...only?) intended as a VM host? And I assume most people are running things in VMs nowadays, so you can "just" migrate over images to the new system (I know it's not that simple, but it's also not quite as complicated as, I imagine, porting something from a bunch of bare-metal x86 boxen to a mainframe).

Also, I'm given the impression that Oxide prioritizes user experience - their website shows off a clean UI and they presumably have modern, easy-to-use APIs. Mainframes, in contrast, seem like a whole different world - if I convinced my company to move to a mainframe, who would even operate it? I know modern mainframes are closer to "normal" servers than their old reputation, but still, I'd imagine it's pretty esoteric stuff, and IBM is famous for not being the cheapest to work with.

I do find it pretty funny that their business model seems to be reinventing mainframes, but I feel like there are important distinctions too. Hopefully they do well (I'd also love to have access to this stuff, but yeah, same "needs that are at most 3 servers" deal).

Mainframes are the original VM host. Oxide racks seem closer to midrange computers from a RAS (Reliability, Availability, Servicing) perspective, but that's pretty much to be expected to begin with. They also have a lot of scope for improvement and are kind of a natural candidate for eventually intruding on that market.