Slashdot Log In
VMware-Microsoft Battle Looming
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon Feb 26, 2007 04:39 AM
from the he-who-controls-the-iron dept.
from the he-who-controls-the-iron dept.
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."'"
Related Stories
[+]
Microsoft Pleads With Consumers to Adopt Vista Now 912 comments
SlinkySausage writes "Microsoft has admitted, in an email to the press, that 'some customers may be waiting to adopt Windows Vista because they've heard rumors about device or application compatibility issues, or because they think they should wait for a service pack release.' The company is now pleading with customers not to wait until the release of SP1 at the end of the year, launching a 'fact rich' program to try to convince them to 'proceed with confidence'. The announcement coincides with an embarrassing double-backflip: Microsoft had pre-briefed journalists that it was going to allow home users to run Vista basic and premium under virtual machines like VMWare, but it changed its mind at the last minute and pulled the announcement."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
uh, news... (Score:4, Funny)
Bring it on. (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Wednesday August 06 2003, @12:27AM)
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.
Virtualization in the OS? (Score:1, Interesting)
Virtualization belongs below the operating system, let's say in the BIOS.
Re:Virtualization in the OS? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://projectdream.org/)
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:Virtualization in the OS? (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Wednesday September 15 2004, @07:07PM)
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)
(http://www.getogg.org/)
Re:Virtualization in the OS? (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://photo.net/photos/swillden | Last Journal: Wednesday July 19 2006, @01:42PM)
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:Virtualization in the OS? (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Sunday February 18 2007, @11:40AM)
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.
Everybody now (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.rodericktaylor.com/)
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: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.
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.
MS up to its old tricks. (Score:2)
Quasinominative Determinism (Score:5, Funny)
(http://ettlz.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday February 12 2006, @06:53PM)
I wonder if he has judicial ambitions.
Not news (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.modthemovies.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday October 27, @11:59PM)
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.
...doomed to repeat it (Score:1, Insightful)
Because partnering with Microsoft in a space they want to own has always been a workable strategy, right? Apparently Mr. Levine has been either been asleep for the last ten years, or is determined to be happy with whatever crumbs Microsoft throws him before the poison takes hold.
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
No, this is *very* clever. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.getogg.org/)
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)
Re:It's Microsoft being themselves (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.intellipool.se/ | Last Journal: Wednesday January 31 2007, @03:49PM)
I think your out of line here...there is allot going on in Redmon that must be a "first"...just check these fine examples, no prior art here (no "post art" either)!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clippy [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_bob [wikipedia.org]
actually, MS does many creative things (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.ecis.com/~alizard)
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.
Xen (Score:1)
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ballmer likes the Bottom!! (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Monday August 22 2005, @11:02AM)
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.
Bye bye, VMware.... (Score:2, Insightful)
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
etc. etc. etc. Sometimes, it takes a while-- like how they're still struggling to make MSN relevant-- but, in the end, they always get what they want. They simply have too much money-- and, therefore, too much clout-- not to.
I'm not saying I agree with this. Quite the opposite, in fact. However, VMware is doomed. (Film at eleven.) You read it here first. Call me a pessimist, but I've seen the writing on the wall. I should have seen it coming when Microsoft released Virtual PC as freeware.
But when Apple does this... (Score:1, Insightful)
When Microsoft discourages virtual machines running Windows: Booo! Hisss! They're EEEEvil!
Double-standard much?
At this point someone usually makes comments about Microsoft making money on the software, Apple making money on the hardware. But it's their business plan - not yours - so I'm sure it does make sense for Microsoft to not permit it. For one, copy protection doesn't work since you can duplicate the entire virtual machine.
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).
Well, now is the time... (Score:3, Informative)
(http://www.isotton.com/)
...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)
(Last Journal: Friday December 01 2006, @10:51AM)
Competitors? (Score:1)
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.
And who does this? No one in the data center. (Score:3, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Monday October 29, @07:20AM)
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.
Nice quotes... (Score:1)
" Steven A. Ballmer, Microsofts chief executive, said, "Everybody in the operating system business wants to be the guy on the bottom...."
Microsoft doesn't want anything ABOVE Windows:
"Microsoft feared a competitor's Web browser, running on top of the operating system, could reduce the power of Windows."
And they certainly don't want anyone else IN Windows.
Where does that leave the competition?
(Don't bother to answer; I already know..)
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 to be a license in use.
What is VMWare complaining about? I'm really curious about this white paper.
VMWare should make it a selling point... (Score:2)
(http://slashdot.org/)
If that is their *official* stance, that the software can be used in various places, as long as it's only used once, that's great for VMWare. VMWare can advertise themselves as giving a consistent virtual environment for your VM. Take your VM between your home PC, your work Mac, your Linux cluster at work, no problem. It could *add* flexibility. And VMWare should have the ability to make the virtual machine that Windows sees be 100% consistent across time and machines, so silly activation hassles could be eliminated.
That being said, I doubt MS's official stance is that you can so easily move Windows between different physical machines, even if it's only being used once at a given time.
Someone needs to force these bastards to make an official stand, and stick by it, rather than just tolerating this patronizing marketing speak.
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:
- Does the increased cost/inconvenience outweigh the benefits this platform provides me?
- Is the hassle, annoyance, quirks, and headaches associated with working with Microsoft products greater then my paycheck?
If the question is yes, then STFU and change platforms or retrain for a new job.So, all you jaded microsoft fan bois, lowly impotent IT's, and astounded pointy hats that got "blind sided" by this 500 ton 2 mile/hour speeding bullet. I say this:
It's called supply and demand retards and the only thing that effects it is the almighty dollar. Microsoft will charge as much as it can with as many restrictions of use as YOU will pay for.
Competition (Score:1)
Anyone try to get support from Microsoft w/VMWare? (Score:1)
(http://www.acmenews.com/)
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=897615 [microsoft.com]
The article is below.
SUMMARY
Hardware virtualization software allows you to run multiple operating system instances simultaneously on a single computer. Microsoft has two software offerings, Virtual PC and Virtual Server, which provide this functionality. Third parties also have software on the market providing this functionality. This article addresses support provided by Microsoft for its software running in conjunction with non-Microsoft hardware virtualization software.
Microsoft does not test or support Microsoft software running in conjunction with non-Microsoft hardware virtualization software. For Microsoft customers who do not have a Premier-level support agreement, Microsoft will require the issue to be reproduced independently from the non-Microsoft hardware virtualization software. Where the issue is confirmed to be unrelated to the non-Microsoft hardware virtualization software, Microsoft will support its software in a manner that is consistent with support provided when that software is not running in conjunction with non-Microsoft hardware virtualization software.
For Microsoft customers who have a Premier-level support agreement, Microsoft will use commercially reasonable efforts to investigate potential issues with Microsoft software running in conjunction with non-Microsoft hardware virtualization software. As part of that investigation, Microsoft may require the issue to be reproduced independently from the non-Microsoft hardware virtualization software. Where issues are confirmed to be unrelated to the non-Microsoft hardware virtualization software, Microsoft will support its software in a manner that is consistent with support provided when that software is not running in conjunction with non-Microsoft hardware virtualization software.
MORE INFORMATION
Third-party software discussed in this article is produced by companies that are independent of Microsoft. Microsoft makes no warranty, implied or otherwise, regarding the performance or reliability of third-party software. Third parties are responsible for the testing of their software running in conjunction with Microsoft software. Microsoft software may not work as intended in third-party virtualized hardware environments.
Competitors... (Score:2)
(http://www.ev4.org/)
And nor do vmware, although a lot of their newer management tools now require windows, thus facilitating their competitors.
Any business that microsoft has chosen to compete with, but yet relies on microsoft for a significant portion of their revenue is in trouble... Just look at novell, netware was relying upon microsoft based clients...
What vmware need to do, is work hard on encouraging the use of non microsoft software with their products, and make sure that none of their products depend on microsoft. After all, if your infrastructure is partly microsoft based anyway, there will always be reasoning (and pushy salesmen) to make it entirely microsoft based, and no longer need to deal with additional suppliers like vmware.
If MS wins (Score:2)
(http://slashdot.org/~nurb432/ | Last Journal: Friday August 27 2004, @03:24PM)
Well, there is always QEMU i suppose, but its not enterprise stable yet to stake your business on it.
Ideots wil pay anything (Score:2)
So why stay with MS Windows?
Bill Gates got rich based on just one true observation: There are a LOT more people who don't understand computers than there are computer experts. Why not sell to the first group? He was right and before the 1980's everyone was selling only to the second group. So he continues to sell crap to people who can't tel crap what they see it and a lt of these people manage data centers. There are more people then you'd think who know they don't know anything about computers except how to point and click through Windows menus and no way on earth will these people switch out to so other OS, they'd be helpless and they know it. They will pay ANYTHNG to continue with Windows. MS knows this and will ratchet the prise up. They know they've lost the guys with good technical backgrounds.
bundling virtualization with Windows (Score:1)
"When quizzed on Microsoft's plans, Ballmer replied, "Our view is that virtualization is something that should be built into the operating system."
It seems that Microsoft has decided to bundle their virtualization into Windows in their usual attempt to extend their Windows monopoly into new markets. Also as usual Microsoft is the trailing edge of technology, i.e. the last company into the market.
There are some very real disadvantages to Microsoft bundling their virtualization software into Windows. The first problem is that the virtualization problem begs for a modular solution. The complexity of running a variety of operating systems as application programs begs for the virtualization software to be kept distinct from any of the client operating systems.
In the case of bundling virtualization into Windows Microsoft will run into the same development problem that they had with Longhorn. Windows has ignored modularity for release after release. New features have been consistently bundled into Windows in a deliberately non-modular design. The result is that adding any new feature requires a rewrite of Windows. This problem with Longhorn resulted in huge development costs to produce very little. Now Microsoft is going to rewrite Windows to bundle the logically very complex virtualization feature? I predict that the effort will either fail or take an incredibly long amount of time and an enormous amount of money.
Microsoft may already realize this. This may be one of the reasons that Microsoft is backing Novell's support for the Xen project. Microsoft may be hedging their bet in case the Windows bundled virtualization project fails.
Unfortunately, the open source virtualization projects, Xen and KVM, also are integrated into an operating system, i.e. Linux. I think that the VMware design is superior to either Xen and KVM. One integrated virtualization OS in Linux is fine. KVM should remain that integrated virtualization system and Xen should be developed into a completely stand alone operating system.
I predict that the end result of the virtualization race will be VMware competing with a GPL3 stand alone virtualization OS. I doubt that the bundled Windows virtualization candidate will be finished in time to enter the race.
--
Steve Stites
I love Ballmer (Score:2)
When quizzed on Microsoft's plans, Mr. Ballmer replied, "Our view is that virtualization is something that should be built into the operating system."
Just because he's a prick and I like to ridicule Ballmer, I'd ask So why didn't you do it in Vista? but something tells me Monkey Man won't admit they didn't think about it before a competitor did. That's so Microsoft-like...Re:You're just driving me away Microsoft! (Score:1)
(http://www.landoverbaptist.org/)
Microsoft is committed to providing the solutions our customer need. I have
relayed your request to our customer request department. Thank you for your
interest in Microsoft.
Microsoft Customer Request Submission