If you are asking "does anyone want a rack-scale computer?" the (short) answer is: yes, they do. The on-prem market has been woefully underserved -- and there are plenty of folks who are sick of Dell/HPE/VMware/Cisco, to say nothing of those who are public cloud borne and wondering if they should perhaps own some of their own compute rather than rent it all.
[0] https://oxide-and-friends.transistor.fm/episodes/holistic-bo...
[1] https://oxide-and-friends.transistor.fm/episodes/the-oxide-s...
[2] https://oxide-and-friends.transistor.fm/episodes/bringup-lab...
[3] https://oxide-and-friends.transistor.fm/episodes/more-tales-...
[4] https://oxide-and-friends.transistor.fm/episodes/another-lpc...
[5] https://oxide-and-friends.transistor.fm/episodes/the-pragmat...
[6] https://oxide-and-friends.transistor.fm/episodes/tales-from-...
[7] https://oxide-and-friends.transistor.fm/episodes/the-sidecar...
[8] https://github.com/oxidecomputer/omicron
1. We aren't making standalone servers: the Oxide compute sled comes in the Oxide rack. So are not (and do not intend to be) a drop in replacement for extant rack mounted servers.
2. We have taken a fundamentally different approach to firmware, with a true root of trust that can attest to the service processor -- which can turn attest to the system software. This prompts a lot of questions (e.g., who attests to the root of trust?), and there is a LOT to say about this; look for us to talk a lot more about this
3. In stark contrast (sadly) to nearly everyone else in the server space, the firmware we are developing is entirely open source. More details on that can be found in Cliff Biffle's 2021 OSFC talk and the Hubris and Humility repos.[0][1][2]
4. Definitely not vaporware! We are in the process of shipping to our first customers; you can follow our progress in our Oxide and Friends podcast.[3]
[0] https://www.osfc.io/2021/talks/on-hubris-and-humility-develo...
[1] https://github.com/oxidecomputer/hubris
My takeway: Optane was good technology that was killed by Intel's thoroughly wrong-headed marketing. It's cheaper than DRAM but more expensive than flash. And much faster than flash, so it makes the fastest SSDs. But those SSDs are too expensive for everybody except niche server farms who need the fastest possible storage. And that's not a big enough market to get the kinks worked out of a new physics technology and achieve economies of scale.
Intel thought they knew how to fix that: They sold Optane DIMMs to replace RAM. But they also refused to talk about how it worked, be truthful about the fact that it probably had a limited number of write cycles, or describe even one killer use case. So nobody wanted to trust it with mission-critical data.
Worst of all, Intel only made DIMMs for Intel processors that had the controller on the CPU die. ARM? AMD? RISC-V? No Optane DIMMs for you. This was the dealbreaker that made every designer say "Thanks Intel but I'm good with DRAM." As they said on the podcast, Intel wanted Optane to be both proprietary and ubiquitous, and those two things almost never go together. (Well obviously they do. See Apple for example. But the hosts were discussing fundamental enabling technology, not integrated systems.)
[0] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/rip-optane/id162593222...
[0] https://oxide-and-friends.transistor.fm/episodes/tales-from-...
[1] https://oxide-and-friends.transistor.fm/episodes/the-sidecar...
[2] https://oxide-and-friends.transistor.fm/episodes/bringup-lab...
[0] https://www.osfc.io/2022/talks/i-have-come-to-bury-the-bios-...
[1] https://oxide-and-friends.transistor.fm/episodes/holistic-bo...
[0] https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/226316
[1] https://oxide-and-friends.transistor.fm/episodes/next-object...