VMware-Microsoft Battle Looming 258
An anonymous reader writes "VMWare released a white paper detailing its concerns with license changes on Microsoft software that may limit the ability to move virtual-machine software around data centers to automate the management of computing work. Two choice quotes: '"Microsoft is looking for any way it can to gain the upper hand," said Diane Greene, the president of VMware.' And, '"This seems to be a far more subtle, informed and polished form of competitive aggression than we've seen from Microsoft in the past," said Andrew I. Gavil, a law professor at Howard University. "And Microsoft has no obligation to facilitate a competitor."'"
uh, news... (Score:4, Funny)
Bring it on. (Score:5, Insightful)
Pissing off the suits that run large data centers and have drunk the virtualization koolaid might just backfire big time for MS. When those execs realise that linux is free to virtualize they'll have a TCO factor bigger than anyone can hide sitting right in front of them. Microsoft will be shafting themselves if they try preventing virtualization.
Everybody now (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Everybody now (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, I toyed with the idea of modding your post down as overrated, but then I thought that it made more sense to explain why rather than just do it. To put it simply, not everybody can switch to GNU/Linux for their datacenters. In a lot of vertical markets the only products available (or at least the best products available) run on Windows. Even if there may be a reasonable GNU/Linux alternative available there can be a significant barrier to entry in the form of long-term contracts, or an entrenched user base numbering in the thousands. Let's be realistic here, for many companies (especially larger companies, the type that are most likely to use virtualization) it's not simply a matter of swapping out Vista and Office for Ubuntu and OpenOffice, and then tying it together with OpenLDAP on the back end.
In my case I work for a software company that develops enterprise application software that is used by most banks, insurance companies, and large manufacturers. We actually started as a Unix-only application, but eventually we had to start developing for Windows simply because that's what the market place demanded. Now we develop and support on both platforms. Our in-house datacenter is heavily virtualized, and our servers are split roughly 50% Windows and 50% Linux/UNIX. Phasing out Windows in our case would not only be incredibly stupid, it would literally kill the company.
Don't get me wrong, OSS is great. We use it a lot, and it has it's place. But it is not some sort of magic bullet, and it definitely is not the answer to every IT-related question.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure if your goal is just to have a toy OS box, a dedicated PC is the way to go, always has been. But if you're hosting multiple VMs that's not the way to go.
Tom
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Get back to us when you have really managed 100s of VMs.
Actual state of management software is ... poor. On other side, the people who have developed their own management for cheap (e.g. blade) hosts farms - feel least urge to switch to VMs from real hosts. For well managed environment with redundant hardware it is really waste to burn CPU cycles of emulation. (*)
VMs solve no particular problem, but just propagate problem of poor OS management to a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It takes up less space in the hosting centre (thus reducing hosting costs) and our machine room, i
Re:Everybody now (Score:5, Informative)
"Actual state of management software is
The actual state of the management software is excellent. Have you used Virtual Center 3? Care to elaborate with your details? I can: it's easy to organize a huge farm of VM's, prioritize them based on their CPU and RAM needs, move VMs from one physical host to another on the fly, generate alerts on nearly anything and customize actions based on those alerts, on and on. There is only one thing I don't like so far about VC/VI, and that is how LUNs on the ESX hosts are managed.
"VMs solve no particular problem, but just propagate problem of poor OS management to another level - hardware/emulated hardware."
It solves two problems off the top of my head: hardware proliferation, and hardware failure.
We have a glut of CPU speed and RAM space, but the chasses surrounding those chips are still expensive. Not just expensive in terms of the box itself, but in the cost of powering and cooling the server as well as the spacial cost of having it in the rack. The solution is to have one physical server do more than one job. The way to do that safely and sanely is to virtualize.
Another major problem VMs solve is hardware failure. Right now, in my own virtual datacenter, I pretty much don't care about anything less than a whole blade going down. If there is a single blip in the hardware, Virtual Infrastructure migrates the VMs off of the faulty hardware automatically, *without interrupting the VMs*. In other words, for 99% of all hardware failures, my VMs keep running and I can swap out the bad physical server without disturbing anything. Zero downtime. I still cluster at the OS level, too, so in reality I am only worried about my whole datacenter being nuked. Similarly, I don't care too much about hardware replacement cycles anymore either. When a warranty expires, I push all the VMs off of the box and unrack it. We unpack the replacement box, rack it & install ESX, and that's it. The Virtual Center will automatically shuffle VMs onto the new hardware.
"In the end, when box is plain hardware you can always pull the plug. Try to emulate that with compromised/erroneous VM which started hogging all system resources from other VMs - and management interface too."
Hehe. 'You try to open the door, but *there's too much blood on the knob!*' You are defining an extremely specific problem and treating it like it's a general issue with virtualization, but I will play along.
Here is what would happen in my environment. First the VC would automatically migrate all of the other VMs away from the crazy VM. Once the crazy VM was isolated, I could pull the plug on the box if I felt like that was my only option. Then I would activate a clone of the VM (I clone every freshly minted server and put the clone on ice--try doing that with nothing but "OS management"), restore data from backup if necessary, and away we go on an fresh, uncompromised server. Meanwhile I can go back and examine the crazy VM at my leisure and have it completely sandboxed.
The state of the art in virtualization is not a single server running a few linux instances, sir. Check out where VMWare (and probably Microsoft) is heading and you will see that things are rapidly evolving. I'm talking a quantum leap in datacenter management here, the biggest thing since commodity hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
The actual databases and what not aren't always hosted in the VM. Smart providers would sell DB access to which doesn't run inside the VM. Also I should point out that most worthwhile VMs
Not if the software you must run is Windows only. (Score:2)
Sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just wait a bit - I'm sure that by the time it hits the front page and the dust settles, it will prove to only be another example of the heavy-handed recidivism we've all come to expect out of redmond. MS can't innovate...can't spot new markets...can't ignore a plum in someone else's grasp, without the targeting systems being brought online. '...Microsoft has no obligation to facilitate a competitor'
As has been said in the past - investing in MS is asking to have your own money used against you in the marketplace.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I've come to feel that the net effect of Microsoft's business practices is the same as those of the **AA, it is as if they hate their customers, because they are more concerned with attack their competition that serving the customers.
Of course, in the case of the **AA, they really do hate their customers but tha
Re: (Score:2)
Ah... another graduate from the Dan Quayle school of spelling.
MS up to its old tricks. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you use XP? Do share with us the vista-specific app you must run on your mac.
I tried Crossover, but it doesn't work reliably for me. But like as if I'm going to spend $AUD 700 for Vista ultimate for a bunch of features I could care less about.
Hold on. $AUD? I thought Australians said couldn't care less?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not Vista specific. But more than likely, in three years time, the latest version of this app WILL be Vista specific. And since I had to buy a version of Windows, and I'll be damned if I want to give MS more money in three years time, I bought Vista. What is your attitude problem?
>Hold on. $AUD? I thought Australians said couldn't care less?
Huh??? I couldn't care less about the features of Windows Ultimate. Da
Re: (Score:2)
You have a nice Mac. It runs lots of things nicely. You can use Parallels if you absolutely must run the app. If the app only runs in Vista and not in prior editions of the OS, that would be the first one of those that I've seen.
Just because your Mac won't run VIsta is no fault of the Mac, or VIsta. It's merely a lack of convenience specifically for you.
Use Parallels or just reboot and stop whining. If you're this easily pissed off, please seek professional help.
Re: (Score:2)
>or VIsta. It's merely a lack of convenience specifically for you.
Ahh, but it does run Vista under vmware. Perfectly fine in fact.
What it doesn't run is MS's brain dead licence agreement.
Do try brushing up on your comprehension skills, which are also brain
dead.
Re: (Score:2)
One more time: boo hoo. Try Parallels. You might like it. It would go well with your w(h)ine. Yeah, the restrictive license sucks. But those that make the software get to call the tune whether we as consumers like it or not. The way to get them, and the only way to get them, is to not buy the stuff. The only place where t
Re: (Score:2)
Quasinominative Determinism (Score:5, Funny)
I wonder if he has judicial ambitions.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares?
What's far more interesting is that someone can fashion a construct like quasinominative determinism and use it in a Slashdot article.
Re: (Score:2)
Not news (Score:4, Informative)
banks and government won't touch it; heck, the U.S. Military made it a criminal offense to run Windows XP on a secured network, until microsoft bribed them with a few thousand essentially free licenses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No VMs? Fine. (Score:2, Flamebait)
Isn't one customer's money as good as another? I guess not.
The management of Microsoft is so myopic and short sighted they can be declared legally blind.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that Microsoft used to brag about adding a feature because a _single_ customer asked for it, correct?
What, exactly, happened between then and now that made the customer wrong?
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, this is *very* clever. (Score:5, Insightful)
If Microsoft used the license agreement against Virtual Machines at the same time as releasing their own, they'd get into legal trouble. Legal trouble is a pain in the neck, so what they're doing is saying that "Virtual Machines are a security flaw" and banning them from the operating system. Then, later on, as a complete coincidence Microsoft is going to create "a Virtual Machine that is safe". Luckily for them, the coincidence that they have crafted doesn't involve any competitors!
Re:No, this is *very* clever. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's Microsoft being themselves (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
actually, MS does many creative things (Score:5, Insightful)
And they do the same great job of getting things to market that Xerox PARC used to do.
MS really doesn't know what to do with good ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
restricting windows on VMWare? (Score:5, Interesting)
=============
Where is the boundary between a "virtual machine" and a "real one"?
After all, the BIOS is definately part of the machine/motherboard and thats SW. If there is another layer of SW inbetween your OS and you HW why should that be any different? I would treat a "virtual" machine as essentially the same as a "real" one - surely in the eyes of the law they must be the same, no?
M$ changing the license restrictions seems as though they are essentialy stepping outside the OS box and determining the physical HW you are and are not allowed to run on. Whats the legal situation here, has this been tried and testing in a court?
Can they actually prevent any version of Windows from running in a VM if that version of Windows cannot detect it?
At the end of they day if a court rules a VM and a real PC are legally the same, where would that leave M$?
Re:restricting windows on VMWare? (Score:5, Informative)
If it cannot detect the VM then technically, no. But they can legally, then when it comes time to do a license audit they will discover how the licensed software is being used, and you can get dinged.
But I wouldn't put too much faith into them being unable to detect whether they're running in a VM. We were trying to install SP2 to SQL Server 2005 last week on a machine that was runnig on VMWare ESX, and the install failed repeatedly. When we checked the logs there were entries that specifically stated that the SP couldn't be installed in a virtualized environment. So it's certainly detectable. There were some recent articles at the ISC about malware that could detect if it was running in a virtual environment, and there are a number of reliable ways of doing so.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
VMWare doesn't make any attempt at hiding the fact that you're running in a virtual machine. Where did you get the idea that it did? For example, if you're running a Linux guest, just take a look at the dmesg output after bootup and count the number of times you see VMWare in the list. Go into the Windows
Re: (Score:2)
Solution? Virtualize the machine with VMWare. Apparently there is an option to virtualize the hardware to keep t
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't. The post that I responded to asked:
"Can they actually prevent any version of Windows from running in a VM if that version of Windows cannot detect it?"
I responded that it's certainly possible to detect that a machine is virtualized, and cited two examples. It sucks when you actually have to read and comprehend at the same time, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
VMware engineers also don't put any faith [blogspot.com] into being able to hide the fact that the guest OS is virtualised. When there are unavoidable holes like timing differences, there's no value in hiding some of the other avoidable holes.
But now they have an answer to the question "congratulations, you now know you're on a VMware Workstation 4.5 VM. What are you going to do about it?"
Re: (Score:2)
As usual, it depends... (Score:2)
It's down - again, of course - to Microsoft wanting to have their cake and eat it too. They want to license Windows to you on a per-system basis, and prevent you from running it however you want on that one sys
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But in the same way, my windows desktop at home is hardware independent. If I remove the BIOS chip and hard disk from my computer, and plug it into a different computer with the same components, that's technically a different machine, but you could also say that my windows installation is a physical installation rather than a virtual one. The OS doesn't necessarily know it's running on a different CPU.
In my view, an OS instance is an OS instance. GP is right - what's wrong with just another small SW layer
Re:restricting windows on VMWare? (Score:5, Informative)
With Vista you will most likely need to reactivate - which is what MS wants.
If you activate on a virtual set of components then you can move to a new physical set of components at will, without reactivation - which is what MS doesn't want.
MS has (half) an argument that virtualisation could subvert the activation stuff (and some of the DRM stuff). The flaw is not in that argument but in the fact that the whole activation-tied-to-hardware thing is fundamentally flawed.
Not a lawyer, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
a) the passage that denies permission to run Vista Home et al in a VM is rather ambiguous, in that it could just be a clarification that the rule that allows you to run the higher-end versions in a virtual machine *at the same time* as a real machine doesn't apply. I'd really like to here official comment from MS's lawyers about how they intended this to be interpreted, and so far I haven't seen any.
b) Even if the ambiguity is only small, it still seems to be there to me, and the rule of contra proferentem [wikipedia.org] should mean it is interpreted in the consumer's favour.
c) It might not make a difference anyway. As I understand it (and I'll admit my understanding of this area is rather fuzzy, because it is a very obscure corner of contract law that I've only heard about once, so I could be completely wrong), for a contract term to be enforceable, one or the other party must derive some legitimate benefit from it. I don't see what legitimate benefit MS derive from restricting the use of their products in this fashion.
Re: (Score:2)
>they intended this to be interpreted, and so far I haven't seen any.
Wouldn't it be more interesting to see how, for example, a court would interpret it?
>Even if the ambiguity is only small, it still seems to be there to me,
>and the rule of contra proferentem should mean it is interpreted in the
>consumer's favour.
Yes, many countries have consumer contract term laws that specifically says that any vague term should always be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't see the ambiguity. Believe me, I've been trying to think of one
Vista Home:
Ie: it is written to indicate that if you have an existing Vista license that has been assigned to a piece of hardware, you can't reuse that Vista license to install it in a VM (running on the same hardware). But what if you have a Vista license that *isn't* assigned to a piece of hardware ?
Compared to Vi
Microsoft has no technical obligation... (Score:5, Interesting)
If VMWare can show that it's as much about anti-competition as it is anti-piracy, they have a valid argument.
Re: (Score:2)
If VMWare can show that it's as much about anti-competition as it is anti-piracy, they have a valid argument.
VM's allow OS' to be treated as just another application. Why should OS-application vendors have any special legal privileges compared to every other software package vendor on the planet? Most software packages are already running in a virtual environment - the OS.
If somebody wrote a package that allowed, e.g. an M$Word instance to be snapshot and reanimated on another machine, could M$ be leg
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that this is a very bad move from Microsoft... as usual, they can't be satisfied with just a piece of the pie, they want everything. VMWare is a mature application, that adds real value to their product. If people can't use VMWare + Windows probably they'll switch to VMWare+Linux, or KVM, or Xen.
What if Microsoft's Virtual PC just don't catch on? They're risking to loose this entire virtualization market to Linux, both as host and guest OS.
Ballmer likes the Bottom!! (Score:2)
Everybody would love if Microsoft reached the absolute rock-bottom of the Operating System business... and with people like Ballmer in charge, that goal shouldn't be far off!
PS: Sarcasm and humour impaired are advised to read this post with caution.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In two weeks we (I and someone else from my company) are going to VMWare presentation.
We are already using VMWare, but currently only for testing. Our plan is to move several systems over to a few new servers (from Dell) running VMWare with Linux guest OS's.
Why is VMWare doomed?
I can't see the connection between anything MS does and what VMWare get from us...
Right now, we've got one computer left here running Windows. The rest are all OSX or Ubuntu.
Re: (Score:2)
In your case, it's a non-issue
Re: (Score:2)
MS will be using more than 1 method to dissuade people from using vmware:
1) Make Virtual PC free
2) Prohibit some MS OS's from running under vmware
3) Make "virtual ready" client licenses of Windows OS more expensive (which affects any VM... but they have to tread carefully here and not specify vmware as the reason. Big deal if VPC is affected see #4
4) Special price bundles and servers for Virtual PC host
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Really? PalmOS is still widely used. Look at the smart Phones being sold There is usually at least 2 with PalmOS maybe 3 with Windows CE, and the rest are blackberries.
Example 2: Xbox 360 vs. Playstation 3
Don't Blame Microsoft on this on Sony was just SUPID! Too little to Late, way to expensive. Sony played a Vista with its Playstation 3.
Example 3: Internet Explorer vs. Netscape
Well netscape went underground and opened its source for the Mozilla foundation. Then Firefox came
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any links about what Microsoft promised for Windows 95? I'd be really interested to read that
There's only one way to settle this... (Score:2)
See? Microsoft doesn't always win!
Not necessarily (Score:2)
Not necessarily:
Re: (Score:2)
True, but the world has changed since most of those examples. For example, Microsoft is losing (quite dramatically) to Apple in the mp3player market. Also, Microsoft is losing market share to Firefox (but not fatally so, not yet at least).
What does this have to do with VMWare? Well, they should learn that competing on Microsoft's turf is doomed to fail; that is what happened in
Re: (Score:2)
Example 1: WinCE vs. PalmOS
Example 2: Xbox 360 vs. Playstation 3
Example 3: Internet Explorer vs. Netscape
Example 4: Doubledisk/doublespace vs. Stacker
Example 5: Windows vs. OS/2
Example 6: Microsoft Money vs Quicken.
Er, wait...
Certainly your last 3 examples (and probably the first two, but since I don't travel in the console or PDA markets, I couldn't say) are just as easily explained by standard market forces.
The enormous suckitude of Navigator 4 and clear superiority of IE4 killed Netscape.
Plumme
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
one is just a windows application.
That is why MS isn't going to win this one.
Did you know you can get a complete ready to use Mono development environment as a VM, works well hosted on ubuntu, or XP or...
Its actually configured on OpenSuse 10.2 but the underlying OS isn't too important what does matter is how quick you can go from downloading to using (missing out the configuration, resolve issue stage is a lot of time saved)
I really would like to see more
Why would you give incorrect examples when.... (Score:2)
With the possible example of #4 (did drive compression really catch on all that much before it was included with DOS?) all of your examples are bogus. Either Microsoft hasn't taken over those markets (#1 & 2), the competitor never had the lead to lose (#5), or the competitor is still kicking in one form or another (#3).
Yet there are real examples you neglected.
WordPerfect?
1-2-3?
Notes?
Netware/Fileservices?
Somehow, though, I suspect that your real motive was to slip the 360/PS3 trol
IBM screwed up OS/2 all by themselves. (Score:3, Interesting)
These are the ones that matter. MS won the desktop war by convincing manufacturers to bundle Windows with every PC. IE won the browser wars by being bundled with Windows, and therefore most PCs. Bundling the virtualization with Windows will be a major advantage for MS, but it's still no guarantee. They don't even own the server market like they do with desktops
Bull! IBM shot themselves in the foot so many times I am suprised they could still find feet to shoot.
I used OS/2 for ye
Well, now is the time... (Score:3, Informative)
...to support VMWare and buy a license for a great piece of software which you're probably using anyway. I am a Debian user and free software enthusiast, but I bought my license for VMWare workstation years ago and never looked back. VMWare is one of the very few commercial programs which I consider worth spending money on. I never had any real problems with it (at least since version 5, which is what I bought), it's fast and a pleasure to use. Maybe Xen or KVM will replace it in the long run, but I'm sure I'll keep on using VMWare for at least another two years.
I know this sounds like an ad, but even their Linux support is great. I had some issues with VMWare 4 (I was using the trial) and asked on the newsgroup; the answers were quick and helpful.
VMWare is exactly the way software should be. If you use it and like it you should really consider buying it.
I guess that VMWare should not have played in MS.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Once again we have to ask... (Score:4, Interesting)
Windows is a 'licensed use' 'closed source' OS. That up front should tell anyone what they need to know about it.
So I have to ask, why is there such outcry that you can't install certain Vista versions in a VM for production or daily use? The last time I checked you can't install OSX in a VM NO MATTER WHAT according to the Apple license.
So every user complaining about this policy from MS, should also write a letter to Apple demanding they let OSX run in VMs legally as well.
At least MS fully licenses the non Home versions to work in VMs, and still allows developers to test home versions in VMs.
So if this really angers you, then you have choices. First you should write Apple and all other Closed source OS companies that don't allow their OSes to run in VMs.
Your next choice is simple, don't like it, don't freaking use it, there are plenty alternatives.
If companies have a software product THEY NEED that only runs on Windows it would be FAR CHEAPER and easier to install a cheap Windows server and let users run that application via terminal services. Also a lot easier to deploy and support than mass amounts of VMs scattered throughout the offices.
As for developers, most developers can get free or trial copies of any windows version for testing, and you can get by the 'license' if you need to test your product on Home Basic even in a VM.
MS is also working with Xen and doing virtualization as a lot of OSS and technical people would want, yet because this puts VMWare at a disadvantage, they get to cry wolf and try to create some PR out of how they get hurt.
If VMWare wants to cry about this, then fine let them cry. But if they want to succeed then they need to create a product that is simply BETTER than MS's VM or anything out there. That is the only way they will succeed, especially considering they have the entire *nix VM Host market as MS doesn't even try to make a non Windows Host version of their VM software.
So get over it VMWare and just do what you do best.
If this was REALLY about OS licensing to run under VMs, then they would also be talking about OSX and tons of other OSes that do not allow usage in VMs; instead they are focusing only on two versions of MS Vista.
This should have been the first clue to everyone that VMWares motives are not as pure or consumer minded as they want people to believe.
Re: (Score:2)
>write a letter to Apple demanding they let OSX run in VMs legally as well.
Why? I have a need to run Windows in a VM, but I don't have a need at the moment to run OSX in a VM. As soon as I do, I'll write that letter to Apple, but right now all I care about is MS leveraging their illegal monopoly against those trying to switch to Mac.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a lot you don't consider when stating something like this.
Let's just take one concept and let you think about it. What is better shoving VM Images over your corporate network or RDP data streams? Now consider this in an office environment where people work from other locat
And who does this? No one in the data center. (Score:3, Informative)
And if you seriously considering multi image same system partitioning of Windows then you my friend need to re examine what it is you're doing. LPARs are not for Windows code. Go out and by an iSeries midrange or an AIX machine.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Aside from developers and a tiny group of specialists who need access to a particular app? In the datacenter world this is anathema. No one running a gaggle of boxes would ever seriously consider this and get paid for it. Cheaper and easier by far to throw up one more server and spend the 0.04 FTE (1/25th of a person) it takes to run it.
I assume you mean that you think it irresponsible to be running Windows in a virtuallized environment? If so, I hate to tell you this but I'm seeing more and more companies, some with very large and capable tech staff, doing just that. At first it was for testing and development, true, but it just became easier to copy the image files onto the production VM serves. I even know of one credit union that has ALL production Windows servers as VMs.
The ease of backups-restores is one big reason for the love b
A tired, unprodound observation (Score:2)
Propaganda and FUD (Score:2, Informative)
1) Windows Server 2003 R2 - 4 licenses for VMs running on Server 2003 Enterprise and unlimited VMs running on Server 2003 Datacenter
2) Windows Vista - Can be run only in a VM on Ultimate and Enterprise, but Enterprise does give you 4 licenses of itself to run in a VM on Enterprise. Value add from Software Assurance? Say it isn't so.
3) Windows Server 2003 R2 - A VM that isn't being run isn't considered
VMWare should make it a selling point... (Score:2)
If that is their *official* stan
I....just....don't...get..it (Score:2)
If you buy something with hard earned cash and it does EXACTLY what it says it'll do, you have absolutely zero ground to stand on as far as complaints.
So Microsoft decided not to support virtual machines on their lower end products. Really all this translates into is a price hike on TCO for enterprise shops. Ok. So? There's only two questions that need to be asked:
Re:Virtualization in the OS? (Score:5, Interesting)
They've got a fancy Hypervisor in Hardware (called the FSP, flexible service processor). Linux is supported natively.
The Managment Console is running Linux, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
VM == Virtually Microsoft's?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with Ballmer's comment (not yours) is that the Operating System is what we want to virtualize. While VMWare ESX is probably almost as much of an operating system as Windows is, it's definitely a lot more stripped down and tightly focused on doing only one thing (providing virtualization) and do
Re:Virtualization in the OS? (Score:4, Insightful)
From the article: "When quizzed on Microsoft's plans, Mr. Ballmer replied, "Our view is that virtualization is something that should be built into the operating system.""
What really belongs in the OS is a self-defense mechanism against malware and viruses, but for whatever reason Microsoft has chosen to let bottom feeders like Symantec live.
Anti-virus should be an included part of the OS along with updates. It's addressing flaws in the product.
Re:Virtualization in the OS? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-virus shouldn't exist since viruses themselves shouldn't exist. The problem here is that viruses and trojans took hold when MS bolted networking into an operating system that was unprepared for it. This made the virus problem much worse than it ever would have been because they spread like a plague with nothing to prevent the spread. Anti-virus tries to fix this by detecting this spread but thi
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Virtualization in the OS? (Score:4, Interesting)
What's I find interesting about your comment is that Microsoft sees virtualization as a major component of their future anti-virus solution.
How's that?
It's what they used to call Palladium, and a key component is the use of virtualization as a kind of a souped-up chroot jail for attack-prone apps -- if you run the browser in its own VM (on top of a minimal, secure OS), then when you close the browser and shut down the VM, any viruses that were able to get in via the browser die with it, assuming they couldn't write themselves into some persistent storage.
Traditional Windows apps couldn't run in such VMs, of course, but it offers a way to have secure apps without losing the ability to run old apps -- insecurely, of course.
Oh, and it would also enable all of the strong DRM crud, because it would provide a nice way to protect certain VM'd apps from manipulation/debugging by the user.
Re: (Score:2)
Fixing their own lunch does not seem to interest them as much a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As such, it makes complete sense to commoditize it by treating it as an app to run in a virtual machine.
I already have my XP virtualized in Parallels, where it is occasionally fired up to run IE controls. Windows is so delicate, and such a pain to configure, that it makes complete sense to make one image then deploy it using virtualization.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Virtualization in the OS? (Score:4, Insightful)
But VMWare only is a "competitor" because VMWare was making some money and Microsoft just couldn't let their cash vaccuum miss any potential revenue. Had Microsoft stuck to what they do "best", VMWare wouldn't be a competitor and that whole aspect of the argument would be moot.
Re: (Score:2)
--jeffk++
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If it isn't in the Operating System it can't be embedded into the Windows and so MicroSoft can't kill other implementations.
Actually in x86 platforms Virtualisation should be at least on the OS because if there is no virtualisation initialisation the system can be exposed to a virualisation enabled malware.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft makes Virtual PC, which is a competitor to VMWare's products. Not much of a competitor admitidly.
Re:But when Apple does this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes there is a double standard - one standard for a small/medium player in a competetive market, and another standard for a company with a near-total monopoly.
Yes, Apple have a restrictive license that only allows you to run OSX on genuine, non-virtual Apple iron.
BUT If you don't like that then you are perfectly free to vote with your feet and buy one of the 95%+ of other computer systems available that don't run come with OSX.
Except... nearly all of those other 95% of systems are running MS software. Even if you complete the uphill struggle to buy one without MS Windows included and run Linux/*BSD/BeOS then sooner or later the 95% of the world who didn't bother will oblige you to use Windows for some task or other.
Are you saying that Apple, with a few % of the market, should be subject to anti-monopoly rules because their only competetor has a near-monopoly??
In short, if Apple ever gain 50%+ of the desktop computing market they'll have to face the same anti-trust responsibilities as Microsoft. The only area Apple are within a sniff of that is with iTMS, and then only if you don't count CD sales as digital music distribution. Until then, every time they decide on a restrictive license, impose a lock in, or piss off a software house by incorporating an application they have to balance the benefits to them against a genuine risk of losing customers to the competition.
In the meantime, MS have - through their Vista licenses and the ridiculous premium charged for "stand alone" copies of Windows - made it extremely expensive to legally run Windows as anything other than your primary operating system.
Sometime, Apple will have to support virtualization on OSX Server in order to compete with Linux and Windows. Currently, I don't think there is a significant demand (personally, I don't even see why you'd want to use OSX as a server, when its USP is its user interface).