Microsoft's Next Virtual PC Will Run Linux 322
Fallen Kell writes "Contrary to previous reports, eWeek is reporting that Microsoft's new version of Virtual PC will support Linux as a virtual OS. I for one am very glad that MS did not strip out all the capability from this great product."
It will run Linux... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It will run Linux... (Score:2)
Re: SCO tax is no longer $699, its too late (Score:2)
Free room and board for the chickens, says the fox (Score:3, Insightful)
First, I've been using Virtual PC now for many years under both Mac and Windows and I have yet to come across an example of where Connectix went out of their way to support Linux. That Linux runs under Virtual PC is a testiment to the quality of Linux as an operating system and Virtual PC as a x386 emulator, but as far as I can tell, no special effort has been made to support Linux under VPC.
Second, in my view it is likely that Redmond explored the possibility of hobbling Linux under VPC, but found that to do so would either a) entail a rewrite of significant portions of the code, or b) damage compatibility with Windows applications that currently run under VPC, so they decided that c) it just wasn't worth it. Why else wait this long to make this announcement?
When my current copy of Virtual PC on Windows becomes antiquated for whatever reason, I will replace it with VMWare [vmware.com]. Hopefully, this will happen at the same time I go AMD64, and I will switch from running Windows as my host OS to running Linux.
Virtual PC on Macintosh has already become antiquated for my purposes, and I have solved that by ceasing to use the Macintosh for everything save development.
Re:Free room and board for the chickens, says the (Score:2)
I've never run the Mac version, as I hate Macs, the last Apple I touched was a Lisa...
But the Win version is fantastic; no PCI problems, runs Slackware, Mandrake, BSD no problems what so ever.
And better yet, OS/2, All versions of Dos, I've yet to come across anything it won't run that I'd be interested in running.
VMware is great on Linux, but the Win version I've never had anything but problems out of.
I've never tried running Mandrake on Vpc in Win2k, then VMware in Vpc Mandrake.. I'll try that the next
Re:Free room and board for the chickens, says the (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow... at least you admit that you hate something you've never used. Most people would be too embarrassed.
Pragmatism or arrogance (Score:3, Insightful)
They don't want to antagonise any judicial review of their current "settlement" ?
They simply don't care, figuring that the cost of preventing "those damned hackers" from (ab)using it is higher than simply selling it ?
They've accepted that Linux will not go away, and are making plans to adapt the 'embrace and extend' policy as best they can ?
Hmmm....
Simon.
What they really mean (Score:4, Insightful)
You still have to be running Windows or MacOS to use Virtual PC.
~dlb
Re:What they really mean (Score:5, Funny)
Damn, now if only there were some way to emulate a Linux environment on my Linux box without using Virtual PC
Cheers,
Ari
Re:What they really mean (Score:2)
Sure it supports it! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sure it supports it! (Score:2)
Note that 2.4.x series kernels are supposed to be built with gcc 2.95.x. The new 2.6.0 kernels have gcc 3.x as the "official" compiler for the x86 architecture.
"will support Linux" misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
The Virtual PC software can run Linux as it can run any other OS that works under the x86 systems. This does not mean Microsoft supports people running Linux. They even state this later on in the article
"We don't support Linux, and we also don't support third-party applications. We direct customers to their Linux providers if they have an issue running Linux on Virtual PC, and if that Linux provider triages that issue as a Virtual PC bug and submits a bug report, we'll work with them to fix the problem. We're treating them like we treat third-party applications," she said.
As it says... they do NOT support Linux but are not going to do anything to block Linux from running under it. Allowing it to run is not the same as supporting it.
Re:"will support Linux" misleading (Score:3, Insightful)
That isn't quite right. The Microsoft spokeswoman said:
But Microsoft has optimized the product around key customer needs, which is helping them address application compatibility issues they are having with older, custom-written applications when they are buying new PCs and upgrading to newer operating systems, she said.
Translation: we're going to optimise it to run what we want it to run, if
Re:"will support Linux" misleading (Score:2)
Heaven forbid Microsoft does what it wants with a product it owns.
But then again, where would Slashdot be without its inane con$piracy theories?
Re:"will support Linux" misleading (Score:2)
If they do certian things with it, then they have antitrust problems. And rightfully so.
Re:"will support Linux" misleading (Score:2)
Re:"will support Linux" misleading (Score:2, Funny)
Wow! Really? That's good news. No, and I haven't heard anything about the Microsoft Linux distro that was due at that time, do you think that that could have slipped out even further now? :-)
A good indication that american's dont read... (Score:5, Informative)
MS has dropped SUPPORT for Linux. VirtualPc could always run linux, but until now (from conectix) ths was official. Means: you could call connectix and ask for help when your linux started to misbehave.
MS is now dropping SUPPORT for Linux. Means: you CAN run Linux, as this basically is a i386 emulator, but if you run into trouble, don't call Microsoft. Also, dont expect MS to provide the nice (and necessary) accelerated graphics drivers that emulators normally come with. Ms will only support Windows.
THis is all MS ever said - actually they pretty directly said Linux will run all the time.
But then, you really had to read to understand this. And eweek seems to have lost this ability.
REALLY tired.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Burn karma, burn.
It's called bias (Score:2)
Slashdot needs these "M$" bashing articles to generate page hits and comments. It doesn't matter if Microsoft never said they were dropping emulation support but simply technical support. Slashdotters don't care, and won't read the article to figure that out. They'l
Re:About those accelerated drivers... (Score:2, Funny)
The problem is that the driver "intgrates" into the VM - it basically uses non-stnadard methods to directly forward commands to the VirtualPC part that then handles it. THis can work as good as emulating DirectX / OpenGL without any significant speed impact, although the emulated graphics card (s3 Trio) is just garbage in the 3d sense.
No, this is part of the VM. Not sure someone could NOT pull it off, but this is internal API only.
Kernel oops. (Score:3, Insightful)
Explorer supports style sheets
Windows 3.11 supported DR-DOS
Office supports XML
Windows Media Player supports MP3
Now Virtual PC will support Linux. That just means Microsoft hates Linux as much as they hate Java, style sheets, DR-DOS, XML and MP3, thinks Linux a danger for their business model (which it is!) and will try to destroy it. (Which of course we knew already).
Or... (Score:2)
Your post doesn't even make sense. Office supports XML--is that supposed to mean Microsoft hates XML? Is that why Office 2003 (and Longhorn) is centered around it?
Why would Microsoft even hate MP3s?
But, I guess logic and calm rationality wouldn't jive with the "M$ conspiracy" themes in your head, would it?
Re:Kernel oops. (Score:3, Informative)
*Wipes coffee spatter from monitor* You have got to be kidding. Can you say, "IE box model hacks"?
Even if the poster's statement were true, it'd still mean that MSIE was still a couple of years behind Mozilla and Opera, both of which offer near-complete support of CSS-2. (Not just a number thing, either -- there's considerable differences between the two.)
So far as Office-generated XML goes... not gonna touch that one, tempting target though it may be.
Nothing changes (Score:2, Interesting)
SlashDot claimed that the next VirtualPC has removed Linux and *BSDs from the list of "supported OS" and this spokesman quoted on eWeek claims that you can still run Linux and *BSDs on Virtual PC though it is treated as another application (read: it's still unsupported).
Doesn't look like anything has changed to me. As long as the reference hardware that VirtualPC emulates is relatively sane, I'd think that you can that VirtualPC will still run Linux and the *BSDs. However it begs the question if VPC will s
Never Trust A Smiling Cat... (Score:5, Insightful)
who can really believe it will run any non Windows Operating System without any personalized Glitches.,
introduced by "pure hasard"...
Regards,
Re:Never Trust A Smiling Cat... (Score:3, Insightful)
My kernel is almost certainly unique in the world on a binary level. Moreover, if Microsoft does try to glitch the emulator, whatever is hanging up the emulator can probably be patched around. Linux is a moving target, unlike proprietary binaries based on multi-year release cycles. Conspiracy theories
How does VIrtualPC compare (Score:2)
Are we going to be missing a great deal?
Re:How does VIrtualPC compare (Score:5, Informative)
deploy an installation image to multiple 'machines'... install from ISO images on HD... bridged, NAT'ed, even local-only networking... hell, it emulates sound hardware! I know a guy that even got a Longhorn beta running on VMWare ;-)
...and while MS's VPC Server product isn't yet available, VMWare's GSX Server product is available right now. VMWare's stuff is *well* worth the price of entry.
Re:How does VIrtualPC compare (Score:3, Insightful)
There seems to be a glaring lack of an Access-like product for linux. Even FileMaker-like would suffice. Has anybody seen one? I mean a real one, not pg-access (a nice effort, but not an Access replacement). Are there any projects with traction, even if it's like gnumeric was several years ago?
Re:How does VIrtualPC compare (Score:2)
cheaper , anod now its MS owned you can guarunteed that future versions will have virtual hardware tweaks that are Windows specific which
IMO means it should be avoided like the plaque.
Re:How does VIrtualPC compare (Score:2)
IMO means it should be avoided like the plaque.
So, if I brush my teeth in the morning, at night, and after every meal, I won't have to deal with VPC or plaque?
Question... (Score:5, Funny)
Just Linux...? (Score:2)
I don't think -
"will run almost any x86 operating system in a Virtual PC environment"
Makes the cut. I was more hoping for a -
"You absolutely can run [{Linux, Solaris, BSD, Netware}] in Virtual PC"
Statement.
It's cold in here... (Score:5, Funny)
popup blocking in XP
Linux on MS VPC!
yep.. it's a cold day in hell
Re:It's cold in here... (Score:2)
Re:It's cold in here... (Score:2)
Easy! Don't Upgrade! (Score:4, Funny)
MS's 'bug fixes' are like feeding an food poisoning victim more tainted meat.
*yawn* (Score:5, Insightful)
The job of Virtual PC is to emulate a x86 environment. The job of the most common version of Linux is to run on a x86 environment. Doing anything that would willfully prevent Linux from running would most likely also break a hell of a lot of other applications that Microsoft loves.
About the only way Microsoft could stop Virtual PC from running Linux (or any other OS for that matter) without breaking other apps would be to put code in that explicity looks to see if its Linux you're installing, and if so Blue Screen. Even Microsoft isn't going to be that openly blatant.
For me personally, this doesn't really matter. I'm sticking with VMware, and I don't much give a damn what Microsoft does with Virtual PC. VMware ain't broke, so I ain't fixing it
Re:*yawn* (Score:2, Informative)
Re:*yawn* (Score:2)
The most infuriating part was that these dirty tricks were so overwhelmingly successful. The phony error message in Win3.0 reinforced in a lot of people's minds the misconception that DR was a johny-come-lately with a cheap knock-off product. Then came the broken compatibility in Win3.1, which damaged DR immensely. It prompted many DR-DOS users to purchase M
Re:*yawn* (Score:3, Insightful)
You forgot the must important advantage of VMWare, it not only runs linux, but it also runs on linux.
Re:*yawn* (Score:2)
For example, VPC traditionally emulates an S3 g
Re:*yawn* (Score:2)
For companies keen to go Unix, they can host their legacy stuff in VMWare and reduce their TCO at the same time (e.g when one box does what three machines had to do previously etc.). In other words it is an escape route and potentially a money saver.
Whereas Virtual PC isn't
Re:*yawn* (Score:2)
So why would they do it again? They may be assholes, but they aren't stupid.
What the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
This was defined as: "MICROSOFT IS RIPPING LINUX OUT OF VIRTUAL PC!"
Today: "we do not support the Linux platform but you can try and run it" which is now being defined as "YOU CAN STILL RUN LINUX!"
Can someone explain this to me because I am totally confused.
Re:What the hell? (Score:3, Informative)
Easy!
You must be new here... (Score:2)
AHH NEED COFFEE (Score:2)
Re:What the hell? (Score:3, Informative)
This was defined as: "MICROSOFT IS RIPPING LINUX OUT OF VIRTUAL PC!"
is incorrect. The original poster jumped to that conclusion because MS hid the Linux option of a product with once excellent support under 'Other'. Posters - both pro-MS and anti-MS - quickly pointed this out and the discussion revolved around whether this constituted a drop or reduction in support. Nothing in today's announcement changes that. You preconceptions confuse you, go back and read the old posts.
A way around it if MS intentionally breaks Linux (Score:2)
Why they bought Virtual PC (Score:3, Interesting)
Secondly it gives them some technology to integrate into windows to gaurantee backward compatability yet allow them to change or remove certain things. They can stop adding support for Win9x and instead just use a virtual session. I wouldn't be surprised if some future version of windows took the technology to it's core such that windows is by default virtual. It would also allow them to support windows on all sorts of other platforms without needing to redesign it's kernel. They might even design a virtual hardware platform specificly expecting emulation and compile windows for it.
I would expect them to play with all these things in lab but who knows if they get released.
QEMU and BOCHS (Score:2)
I'd like to see more work done on QEMU and BOCHS two x86 emulators. QEMU needs more porting work (Alas, it does not work on my beloved OS X yet...), and BOCHS is fairly slow.
QEMU [nongnu.org] BOCHS [sourceforge.net]However, I think QEMU could compete head on with Virtual PC within a year if it gets additional porting effort.
You can Be CERTAIN... (Score:2)
Sure MS cannot own Linux, but it can add its functionality to their own and persent a combination that Linux alone cannot present.
What MS is doing with longhorn and pursuing
Consider SCO as an associate with MS, where SCO is exploring the possibilities for MS to use, no matter how insane a possibility might seem doing such is looking for teh boundries of the GPL....in MSs effort
This is so great! (Score:5, Funny)
IRONY AT IT'S BEST (Score:5, Funny)
isn't that like wearing a raincoat so you don't get wet while riding in a boat with a hole in the bottom
of it...hehe
Re:IRONY AT IT'S BEST (Score:2)
isn't that like wearing a raincoat so you don't get wet while riding in a boat with a hole in the bottom of it...hehe
Or wearing a rubber while your boyfriend slams you in the ass without one?
Sorry, I saw "wearing a raincoat" and had to come up with a useless way to use a condom.
stripping linux.... (Score:2)
Stop Complaining about useless stuff. (Score:2, Insightful)
You do all realize that even if Linux didn't show up in the menu it is still supported. You just choose Other and set your memory allocation. I don't understand what the big deal is and why everybody can't really understand that those OS's listed are just templates not supported OS's. You would think a technical bunch like
supported vs. supported well (Score:2)
both poster and timothy have misunderstood (Score:3, Insightful)
It isn't cheaper (I think)... (Score:2, Interesting)
Unless you do get a license of Windows thrown in (which I doubt), then it isn't an undercut but a price hike.
Anthony
Why wouldn't you run Yellow Dog Linux instead? (Score:2)
While you're listing apps, make sure you tell me why you'd rather run them on PPC hardware inside of a $100+ x86 emulator instead of on $300 of true x86 hardware with performan
Poor MS (Score:2)
Now that they're supporting it... guess what, it's a conspiracy and they're evil!
Some people are hard to please
Runs Linux or runs *on* Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)
But don't hold your breath expecting to ever see it run on Linux.
The bigger story here is the vaunted price cuts for this software. I'm sure they're not trying to drive VMWare out of business or anything. No indeed.
From the article. (Score:2)
That is one of Microsofts biggest problems is with their beta testers. Most of the time they require people to pay for the privilege to become Beta Testers. Next all the Microsoft Beta testers I have seen just do it so they have all the "1337" Technology in their hands first. But when there is a bug they don't bother reporting it and the figure that someone else will. Microsoft should find better
Dear Linus: Welcome to the Microsoft family! (Score:3, Interesting)
"Asked whether Microsoft is considering integrating the virtual technology into the core Windows kernel, Huffman skirted the issue, saying Microsoft is committed to developing virtualization solutions for the Windows platform. "It's too early to say how we will deliver these solutions going forward," Huffman said."
Consider two different "embrace and extend" compatible strategies: A) add a virtualized sandbox for Linux/BSD/etc. or B) add a Linux compatibility layer to the Windows XP/2000 kernel.
Strategy A also provides them with some added benefits - it solves a whole bunch of security embarassments in one fell swoop and re-opens some markets that are currently starting to close down on them. They could also argue that the virtualization is generic, and therefore they are not directly competing in the Unix market ("we treat Linux as any other third-party app.")
Strategy B boils down to a pissing-match over kernels - I still lock up XP on a several-times-a-week basis, but if they _could_ get a stable and secure kernel (yeah, I know, not holding my breath either), they could effectively co-opt everything in the OSS world for their own benefit without having to worry about "viral" licenses, while still providing a platform for their own proprietary software product line. Of course, they would have to get out of (if they haven't already - did SCO really inherit the Xenix contract?) that pesky committment not to compete in the Unix market.
The best attack for Windows to embrace and extend Linux is to first confuse the two and assimilate what people think of as "Linux" into Windows (or...shudder...vice-versa.)
Projects like WINE have us thinking in one direction - what if Microsoft were to pull the same trick going the other direction? If they can't sell a Microsoft-branded web server, at least they can sell the operating system that you run Apache on top of.
Strategy C scares me the most: Microsoft would have to decide how important their kernel is to their OS sales - THEY could just as easily create a 100% working WINE and sell the Windows "Look & Feel" running on top of Linux or BSD kernel just as MacOS did (except under x86), and re-brand it as a security-solution with cross-platform compatibility benefits (that will cost just about the same price as their own-kerneled OS's, methinks.) You can see how they are pissed-off at the GPL - that's how they get around it and get the open-source volunteers working for them.
I have to hurry and finish this because the Microsoft Death-Beam satellite is due over my home in just a few moments, and I'm running low on tin-foil and........gahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!
Re:Dear Linus: Welcome to the Microsoft family! (Score:2)
Hell, a virtualized sandbox in general; spawn off a virtual processor, and run IIS in that.
Kind of like a chroot jail taken to the next level.
Re:Dear Linus: Welcome to the Microsoft family! (Score:2)
The ? is wil virtualpc come bundled with windows (Score:2)
The virtual PC program was the same, but you could buy it with PCDOS (IBMs DOS), Windows or Linux. I had a copy with PC DOS and installed Suse linux on it. Worked great. Obviously the windows version cost more
Im betting no more PCDOS and Linux virtual PC. You'll have to buy the emulator with windows (Much like you can't buy a naked PC).
Sigh
Although with OSX there is less need for running emulated linux, and there are Linux distributions for mac hardware now.
Just In... (Score:2)
If they follow past behaviour... (Score:2)
This is great! (Score:3, Funny)
- the speed of an emulated 386
- the uptime and reliability of the Windows host OS
- the security model common to all Microsoft products
How can they lose?
Virtual what? (Score:3, Funny)
Is the OS of a virtual machine really virtual? If so, how far does the virtuality extend? Do I virtually type on my virtual machine running a virtual copy of Linux? Am I virtually coding virtual thoughts when I virtually type on my virtual Linux while it runs on the virtual machine?
XBOX2 is the reason they bought virtual PC (Score:2, Interesting)
Conflict of interest (Score:2)
Anyone that buys Virtual PC to run anything other than Windows is asking for grief. In fact, with the end-of-life dates for most older versions of Windows, expecting any support from Microsoft for anything other than XP on Virtual PC is a stretch.
Bugs? (Score:2)
Re:Why wouldn't they? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why wouldn't they? (Score:2)
The real thing to be worried about is if they stop selling the standalone Vrtual PC, and only sell it bundled with Windows, then they get their Microsoft Tax even if you throw out Windows and install Linux
It's both (Score:3, Informative)
Where the hell did you get that idea?
There's a version of Virtual PC that's an emulator (Virtual PC for Mac OS X), and there's a version of Virtual PC that's a VMware clone (Virtual PC for Windows).
The real thing to be worried about is if they stop selling the standalone Vrtual PC, and only sell it bundled with Windows
Not at the price point at which Microsoft is aiming according to the article: "the software will be available by the end of the year, through Microsoft's existing retail and volume l
Re:Why wouldn't they? (Score:2, Funny)
VirtualPC is a PC emulators... if it doesn't run Linux, then it doesn't run shit...
Re:Why wouldn't they? (Score:2)
Rus
Re:Why wouldn't they? (Score:2)
Linux has hurt alot. Back in the 90's one of the arguments for switching to NT from Unix is that you would need 2 workstations per developer. One expensive risc box and one windows. Also you could run IIS on each web developers workstation and test things out. Linux and now virtual pc eliminated that. You do not even need to reboot. Just launch Virtual PC. This makes proprietary
Re:Nice! (Score:3, Informative)
"We don't support Linux, and we also don't support third-party applications. We direct customers to their Linux providers if they have an issue running Linux on Virtual PC, and if that Linux provider triages that issue as a Virtual PC bug and submits a bug report, we'll work with them to fix the problem. We're tr
Re:Nice! (Score:5, Funny)
Next page: Microsoft puts focus on security.
Does THAT sound like something Microsoft would do? heh
Re:Nice! (Score:2)
In Gates' dreams, Windows is trustworthy. Ahh the thin line between marketing and daydreaming...
Re:wheeee..! (Score:5, Insightful)
personally, I find this announcement somewhat foreboding, as it hints that MS may threaten to displace VMWare as the machine virtualization software of choice -- if VMWare goes under... well, VirtualPC may be able to *run* Linux, but it will be a cold day in Redmond before VirtualPC runs *on* Linux.
Re:wheeee..! (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree. It would seem to me though, that Microsoft being the legally recognized monopoly that they are, that the government is obligated to make sure that they do not also become the sole provider of emulation software. Of course, it'll be a cold day in Redmond before they do that.
I disagree (Score:2)
No, there was a great deal of need for Slashdot to have another Microsoft-bashing article. "M$ IS REMOVING LINUX FROM VIRTUAL PC!!1"
Meanwhile, if people had read the article or researched other sites, they would have known that Microsoft was indeed dropping support for Linux from Virtual PC 2004--official technical support, that is.
Paul Thurrot at Wininformant already reported on this. But heaven forbid Sl
Re:Price-dumping? (Score:5, Informative)
No, they never did.
Connectix made the VirtualPC series of products, and VmWare made the VMWare series of products.
Connectix was bought by Microsoft, but VMWare is independant.
Re:Price-dumping? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Price-dumping? (Score:3, Interesting)
In other words, you are out of luck unless you get support from your linux vendor and in turn your linux vendor is entitled to virtualpc support from MS.
Does that mean that Microsoft has unwittingly credited Free Software as having a business model based on support services? If so, then it's a pretty significant milestone to have accomplished.
Re:Price-dumping? (Score:2, Interesting)
A nice little piece of revisionist history there. The Connectix price was $129 for the last several months. In the two weeks before they completely removed the ability to buy the product, it dropped to $119. The day before I made up my mind to buy it, Microsoft took it off the market.
Why didn't I pick VMWare? Choice #1 was upgrading my Win98 machine to XP, and buying VPC ($90+$119). Choice #2 was upgrading my Win98
Re:Price-dumping? (Score:2)
We're actually booting a linux kernel image?
Are hardware drivers otherwise unusable by <open source package> made usable through this?
Re:I thought (Score:2)
Re:Fair Play (Score:2)
More anti-freemarket actvities (Score:2)
Re:Chicken and egg competition? (Score:2)
Likewise linux developers are very happy to have the flexibility to run windows application under linux when all the OS calls will be stable under WINE.
Um, that's never going to happen, seeing as how the Wine developers have explicitly stated that they intend to implement the win32 API "bug for bug".
Apples to Oranges comparison (Score:3, Insightful)
So, it does not surprise me that VMWare is performs better. I would be surprised if it didn't. But VMWare is also much more limited, it can't run on non-x86 platforms.
Personally, this is why I think MS bought