point out one distro based on embedded linux, if you would. One that does not require USB to boot, or a LiveCD. Compared to the old days of linux kernel 2.0.36, linux kernel 2.6.xx is fucking Windows Vista, pre-SP1. Even the netbook-oriented distros are pigs compared to linux distros from that time. You can yammer on about all the new functionality you have, but linux is still swelling up with 'extra features'.

I tried to help out someone who had a Thinkpad T600e (Pentium II, 128MB RAM) and wanted to use it because it was the only machine that her relatives would not co-opt and install iTunes and every app under the sun on. I tried DSL, Puppy, etc. Compared to OP's requirements, this thing should've been a shoe-in: one USB 1.1 port, one CD-ROM. Neither DSL nor Puppy would boot on the thing - it would kernel panic when running setup regardless what kernel params I passed, on either distro.

I gave up and installed an old OEM copy of Windows 2000 Pro I still had kicking around - and it works fine. Hell, even Office 2003 works well.

i guess it *does* matter in that there apparently is a law or set of laws in place to make it illegal to do stuff like this. Companies like like Winchester or S&W or Boeing are legally operating manufacturers of firearms or aircraft used as weapons delivery systems, and so on.

I think the DMCA is stupid, but what you and I may think ethically doesn't mean a single thing from a legal standpoint. Here's hoping he gets off with a fine (though after seeing what happens to people who admit in court that they knowingly pirate songs, maybe that wouldn't be so great).

I don't agree re: VMware Server - I suspect it's much easier to find a computer with a copy of Windows XP on it than it is to find a server with the specific hardware requirements for ESXi. Performance, though... *shudders*
As far as white-box hardware, you're right. In my particular case, however, the machines in question were HP servers, not generic corner-cutting hardware, as you imply.
Further, on the two ML-series servers I had that met the hardware prerequisites for ESXi, neither would boot ESXi without a panic. I installed xen and had no problems.
I never tried Hyper-V, as xen met our performance expectations. How is Hyper-V's support for non-MS operating systems?

I realize this post is a bit hysterical, but the poster's correct in his/her information. why is this flagged flamebait?

The MS license 'graciously' allows you to use multi-core CPUs without extra cost (such nice bastards), provided the number of CPU sockets fits within your OS license. Regarding virtual procs and MS OSes - according to Microsoft: "For licensing purposes, a virtual processor contains the same number of cores and threads as its underlying physical hardware system."

you better go back and read the licensing terms for Windows Server 2003... Using the Enterprise Edition, you may run up to four 2003 servers with no additional license, provided you're using 2003R2 EE as the host OS. With Datacenter, you have unlimited licenses, provided that you're using 2003R2 DE as the host OS. Any other scenario, and you're required to license each copy of 2003R2.

I have a T61 (6465-57U) and run VirtualBox on top of Ubuntu 9.04 to run instances of XP - it works really well for me, provided I stay away from 'seamless' mode. I only wish the T61 had a higher RAM cap. Performance-wise, though, it works pretty nicely.

that's BS - I use xen to host a mix of debian and Windows images, and the I/O performance is pretty good. VMWS is the 'option' if you want to have absolutely substandard I/O performance.

ugh, there sure are a lot of people throwing out 'use ESXi - it's free!'. ESXi only runs on certain hardware, so if you don't have that hardware, it's not even a valid choice. Real management of ESXi is not particularly wonderful without using VMWare's management software, and that's not free, as far as I know.
I agree that performance-wise, it's a better choice than VMWServer. But I don't think the entry point for ESXi is as low as xen or Citrix's XenServer. XS runs on a wider range of hardware than ESXi, and the 'basic' management tools are pretty good, and also free.

I agree with everything else you mention, though, so don't think I'm trolling your post. I read TFA, and wow... where to start?

I use xen to host a number of light- to medium-load VMs, and I've been very happy with the performance. Windows server with the paravirt drivers perform very welll.

"You lied to me, Edward! There is a Swansea!"

I agree with you 100% - I don't think it's necessary to credit the people who've worked under the collective GNU appelation (who are credited, as you mention, for each of their apps) for an OS that has been assembled from their parts by other people. Maybe soon we'll see Linux distributions with "Kernel provided by Linus Torvalds", though I don't think LT is the sort who needs these sort of accolades (disclaimer: I've never met the man personally, so I have no real idea). It reminds me of the nonsense a while back with OpenBSD and the OpenSSH project, which is something I think those interested in using open-source software can do without.
My post was a low-brow sort of jab at the free software people who feel it necessary to point out at every turn that I'm using "free" software provided by their good graces, social conscience, etc. I feel that some of these FSF supporters are without regard for the many open-source products that don't go along with the FSF's definition of "open", even though the product's source code is available for modification by parties various and sundry.

I thought that GNU/Linux users (let's use the politically correct idiom, since you mentioned OSS ideals) *did* follow the Hurd. That was the whole point, right? I mean, you (collectively) may not use the hurd kernel, but you (again, collectively) certainly use tools derived from or built for this totally free operating system... right? ;)