Slashdot Mirror
VMware: Another Netscape?
An anonymous reader writes "
This CRN article states that Microsoft is about to buy Connectix and enter the server consolidation market. Connectix makes virtual machines products that compete with those of VMware. Quote: 'The technology will be integrated into the Windows code, sources said.' Will Microsoft be able to pull this one off? Will their virtual machines run operating systems other than Microsoft's?"
if virtual pc will be suspended for the mac.
are they more concerned about stopping adoption of os x, or more concerned about selling windows licenses to mac users?
What will happed the Connectix's products for the Macintosh and OS 2?
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
Comparing this to the browser battle isn't a good example. I doubt that MS will allow other OSs to run, thus VMWare will still have the market for running Non MS OSs on Win2k/XP. Plus, I doubt that MS will offer any functionality where you can run a MS OS on top of a non MS OS (although they may, since they'll still sell licenses in that situation), thus VMWare keeps that market too.
VMWare isn't going away. They just may take a hit on the running multiple Windows on Windows market.
I wonder who will be the first to lose their job when the .NET Server crashes, thereby taking down dozens of virtual machines.
I sometimes run VMWare on Linux, but that's just to play Ultima 7. Can't say Linux ever crashed down from under my Avatar. Win2K actually did, using the same VMware version.. ominous at best. I'm not touching it with a 10 foot pole!
Learn from the mistakes of others. There isn't enough time to make them all yourself.
'The technology will be integrated into the Windows code, sources said.' Will Microsoft be able to pull this one off? Will their virtual machines run operating systems other than Microsoft's?
This is most likely Microsoft's response to Solaris Containers which are expected to be shipping in Solaris 10. Of course, both of these are simply implementations of ideas pioneered by IBM with VM/CMS.
The VM approach makes a lot of sense even if you only plan to use it to run multiple copies of the native OS within them. The advantages are twofold. Firstly, it prevents one malfunctioning application from impacting other applications - even on Unix this is a serious problem, since one process can devour the CPU, memory, disk space, etc. Secondly, it allows resources to be redistributed or added on the fly, especially if your VM is seamless enough to span nodes.
I think MS's biggest problem is they try to clump too many things into one, that and a companies hierarchy can scale only so much. Trying to add something like this that is extraneous for the most part is just going to screw things up. It's not a criticism of MS, I don't think anyone could do what they are trying to do well. It's simply too much.
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
This is something that should be integrated with the operating system. I'm dying for Apple to dump money into MacOnLinux, port it to Mac OS X, and make it use a hardware optimized QuartzGL -> NativeOS' OpenGL pathway. Shouldn't even be hard for them. Samuel Rydh just doesn't have that much time in the day.
It'd make me much more likely to buy an Apple desktop, and I'd certainly shell out an extra $100 for the product itself
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Huh? For what?
I'm sitting here on an x86 that's 6 years old and still does anything I want on it. I can do most everything I want on it and about fifty times more than what the average person wants to do it.
That's where win-tel computers are targeted. Want to run it on a real hardware platform? Then fscking go out and buy one and do it and run a real OS on it. Why Win2k on a 32-way box? Just to flex your geek muscles?
Ok, I have no problem with Microsoft buying Connectix. I do have a problem with them bundling it back into the Windows OS code. It seems like Microsoft's usual tactic to take over a market they see someone else do well in (but competitor, integrate into OS, etc). Who should I write to? Judge Kollar-Kotelly, FCC, my Congressional reps?
Given MS's history, I think it is a safe bet that this will be a _bad_ thing for VirtualPC Mac.
At the very least, I fully expect one to be required to purchase it with a Windows license.
I personally think VPC (all platforms) will go away entirely.
How did this get by the FTC?
VMWare couldn't ever become another netscape.
They sell their software, and people actually buy it.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
It has been stated that VPC for Macintosh is now under the control of the Macintosh Business Unit. [MBU]
The biggest problem with this, of course, is the fact that Bill and Co. may just decide that the only application that the MBU needs to push out is VPC. This means no more Office X, no more native X applications, just run the Windows version of the app in VPC [slowly and painfully]
Oh man this is bad news. I wonder if the DOJ even cares.
Blocklevel: Practical Information Architecture
"Microsoft has responded to a need customers have asked for," said one source also familiar with the deal. "It will provide server consolidation, software distribution and better development, and they are moving to address that."
Obviously, these "customers" have never tried VMware which is one of the best killer apps I have used in a LONG time. I enjoy running W2K in VMware on my Mandrake box here at work. It nice to not have to reboot the entire PC when windows crashes. I can still do other pats of my job while the windows partition is booting. This is just another attempt by MS to own EVERYTHING that they don't already own. Hey MS, leave these guys alone you jerk offs!
"Klaatu, verada, necktie!" -Ash
Obviously this is another ploy to charge absurd amounts of money for a JAWV (Just Another Windows Version).
If your goal is run many OS instances on the same hardware (in a production server environment), why don't you just get an IBM mainframe? They are MUCH more reliable than tinker-toy x86 servers, and IBM has made a name for themselves lately selling Linux on their mainframes.
Integrating virtual machine software with the Windows OS sounds like an answer to the wrong question.
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
It is kind of curious that Microsoft would choose Connectix's product for its virtualization. For those not familiar with it -- Connectix Virtual PC is a little more elaborate than VMware because it actually emulates the i386 CPU in software. This is why it works, for example, on a Macintosh, while VMware doesn't.
Now, it should be patently obvious that Microsoft doesn't want you running Linux-on-Windows, Windows-on-Linux, Windows-on-Mac, or anything other than Windows-on-Windows. So you have to wonder what they're up to, here.
When you don't have cross-OS stuff to worry about, why emulate the hardware? For that matter, why emulate a computer at all? For Linux-on-Linux applications, you probably won't choose VMware when you can instead run User Mode Linux -- it uses the hardware more efficiently, you can share filesystems between the host and virtuals using NFS, and it runs the host OS's native binaries. I would think Microsoft would prefer to go this route.
Or perhaps Microsoft has finally decided that Itanium is an ongoing disaster and they need an Intel exit strategy? Hmmm...
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Ever pay for VPC? $250 -- $200 of that is for the Windows license. MS didn't cut Connectix any deals.
Of course you _could_ buy the $50 DOS version and install your own copy of Windows. I expect that version to be discontinued real quick. Or to include a "free copy of Windows" -- for $250.
it's just a totally, completely different product than VPC and VMWare, and people shouldn't be comparing them at all.
Connectix would sell out everything they've got to anybody. Corporate whores.
Remember Connectix Virtual Game Station? VGS was the best PSX emulator, with a focus on compatibility over performance. Much better compatibility than bleem or epsxe. Well, they sold that off to Sony, who killed it. Connectix were fully aware that Sony would kill it.
I have no doubts that MS wants to kill Virtual PC for Windows AND ESPECIALLY Mac OS. Apple and MS are fighting a Cold War of their own right now; anything MS can do that will undermine Apple is fair play.
For amusement's sake, I just hope that MS tries to build RAM Doubler into the next version of Windows. The Windows version of that program was so bad that Windows ran slower and had worse virtual memory management when it was installed compared to the base OS virtual memory. I would like to see "Windows Doubled" on store shelves, wouldn't you?
XP has been VERY stable for me. I've let it run for weeks nonstop while playing games, doing statistics work, and software development (full-blown Windows apps, not college console assignments). All the while, my RAM usage is reasonably low and the OS has never crashed.
That's not the same as saying IE doesn't crash. IE has crashed once or twice in a few weeks, but the OS keeps on chugging. Now, if only they'd remove that STUPID activation scheme...
I saw the article already, but based upon M$ history and the announced integration of yet another application into already bloated and non-secure mess that Windows is, I foresee future news, with a familiar flavor. I.e. "this exploit allows anyone to take over any instance of blahblahblah".
Yeah, they also said they would continue to support Mac computers, but is this something you really want? I couldn't help, but notice a comment that 'they don't intend to kill the software'. Really... It's just one more sword to dangle over Apple, when Steve gets too uppity.
I don't see any long-term winners here, other than those selling Connectix's assets.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Sony bought VGS outright a year or two ago. It belongs to Sony, not connectix or microsoft, and I'm positive none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the merger.
Besides, it's pretty common knowledge that the money in the console world is made selling the games. Why would MSFT want to widen the PSX's installed userbase?
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Most of VMWare's money maker market is running *windows* 'server clients' in large data centers, regardless of what we would like to believe. ( face it, Microsoft still holds the majority of the computing market, at least for now )
I really don't think the 'workstation' version is making them a lot of money. its nice, but its pocket change in comparison to selling licenses for the 'big iron'.
If Microsoft attacks the ESX/GSX server market, in its typical fashion of 'forced migration', then it could hurt VMware greatly.
I expect citrix to be on the list of people to force out of business too, for similar reasons. ( yes its a different type of product, but similar in concept that its a 'data center' market that Microsoft will want to keep in-house )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
First let me say that I really like VMWare. I think they did a fabulous job - it's one of the better-engineered pieces of software that I've ever seen. All the times that I've had the pleasure to use it, it's worked for me without a hitch, despite the subtle complexity required to do an application like that well.
Furthermore, I hope that one day we'll see a real, meaningful government reform at Microsoft that puts them out of the business of "innovating" away various application markets.
My needs for VMs have been sparse. Most often I'm testing something (like an installer) that sprays stuff all over Windows, and it's just simplest to roll it back using the Undoable disk when the test is over. Or maybe I've got some code I want to check out that I consider really dangerous. Once in a while, if I'm stuck running Windows, but I need a Unix service on the network for a little while, I can raise a virtual linux server and keep it running as long as I need it. Far more convenient than hauling out another box.
I can see the attraction in virtual machines. You have so much more control. Bluescreens don't hang everything - only the particular virtual CPU they happen on. And VMWare's code is so freaking efficient, I can play counterstrike with a few of these virtual servers running, answering queries in the background. But it seems silly for virtual machines to become institutionalized in that role. To me, that's evidence of failure in the OS design. You have a reliability problem? Fix it in the OS. You have a control problem - something you wanted a VM and Undoable disks to solve? Add a feature to the filesystem. You have a security problem? Definitely an OS issue.
VMWare et al are great for ad hoc stuff and I think sooner or later most developers would be glad to have it around, but if you plan on running it all the time, in a server environment for instance, then it's just a big kluge. Your OS wasn't _designed_ to run inside itself... it's a big resource waste. Fix the problems in the OS. Compartmentalize, if that's what the environment demands. But don't do it this way. It's just goofy.
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
I seriously doubt it. Apple is no threat to Microsoft, not even a remote one. They still make Mac software, including it's only real office suite. How can they be attacking Apple with that state of affairs?
Microsoft are shielded from Apple by simple economics, which haven't changed in a decade. Windows apps won't run on anything other than Windows - if you happen to run your copy of Windows on a Mac via Virtual PC, what do Microsoft care? You're still using their software, you're still paying them for the priviledge.
The only thing that is a real threat to Microsoft these days are Wine with Linux. Wine is obviously not really possible without the supporting base of free software it uses, hence the fact that it's a threat.
Wine on Linux/FreeBSD is basically the only way you can run Win32 programs without paying for Windows itself in a completely legal fashion. If Wine were to run on a Mac, maybe then it'd be an issue, but that's a large task technically. It wouldn't surprise me if Apple tried that at some point in the next few years if Virtual PC dies. Thank god Wine is under the LGPL.
Nothing sad about it. Now you know why IBM was so restrained during the Settlement phase.
Q1. If you own a mongo-hardware server and you need 50 more virtual machines running Windows, how many copies of Windows do you have to push through Purchasing before they come on-line?
A1. 50.
Q2. If you own a mongo-hardware server and you need 50 more virtual machines running Linux, do you even have to let Purchasing know?
A2. No.
Extra Credit: According to the Settlement, how much of a discount can Microsoft offer you for the second, third, etc license for Windows?
EC: zilcho.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
I agree, his broadcasting is excellent. His facts, honesty, and patriotism are questionable, however.
...why MS wants this? It's a way to logically partition a server.
You have sysplex on IBM mainframes, now you will have the same capability on Wintel boxes.
It's not about any deficiencies in Windows as some have put forth. It's about moving further towards an enterprise-class server OS. The ability to partition a system into multiple logical systems is something that is done all the time in the mainframe world, and I suspect in the Unix world as well. As a matter of fact, the mainframe where I work has at least three Unix partitions running on it. These are essentially just virtual machines under the base OS (OS/390 I believe).
This is something MS needs as they continue the march to taking over the datacenter. They can't compete with the big boys with this type of technology, hence it is a perfect, if not utterly obvious, acquisition for them.
I personally find VMWare to be superior, but then my experience is not in the server space, it's on a desktop. Maybe this product is superior on a server, I don't know.
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
Do you remember the last time when Connectix sold it's Playstation emulator to Sony.
There was lots of talk about how good this would be, since Sony could cerate an official platform for selling PSX games to mac and pc users, since Sony was supposed to lose money on consoles this would make perfect sense. Of course, this did not happen, Sony chose to kill it instead.
Now, why do I get the feeling that the exact same thing will happen again?
Somewhere in the heavens... they are waiting.
Almost everyone here seems to be missing the point. This is not for home use. This is not intended for you, Joe Schmoe Windows at Home user to run other operating systems.
This is for the server market. We have an IBM mainframe at work that is currently running approximately 6 virtual machines. Not so that you can play a Windows game in Linux, but so that the mainframe can offer more services. Although I do believe that one of the virtual machines is a fairly standard installation of Linux of some sort, every other OS on the system is a very specifically tailored OS for a specific job. I'm not the administrator for this box, so I can't say too much. But I know that there are specific Tivoli UNIX versions installed, as well as an TSM/ADSM (backup) specific OS.
I think that THIS is what the article is getting at. This is not about you playing Tux Racer on your Windows box.
Sig.i>
Virtual PC is a nice piece of software that sells a fair number of copies, but doubt it's installed on more than 1% of all Macs. Killing or not killing it simply isn't a big deal either way in any Windows/Apple war.
Unless VMWare is planning on stagnating their product, branching out into tons of marginally related ventures, and fucking up standards implementations, I don't see them becoming a netscape.
While MS may have the foot-in-the-door advantage, I'm wondering if the fact that VMWare also supports Linux may help or not.
I know that personally, even though I run XP on my desktop, MSDN subscription, yadda yadda, I would only do something like GSX/ESX on a Linux box.
It will be interesting to see how this goes...I wish them the best of luck.
While you are right about virtual machines, you are wrong about operating systems vs. web browsers.
A decent, stable web-browser is much more difficult to design and implement than a decent, stable operating system. Which is why very few web browsers are stable, while a lot of operating systems are.
Processing web pages does require far less low-level understanding of hardware, but any good programmer will understand the low-level stuff in any case and would find operating system design and implementation easier...because it involves a lot less guessing, it's a much more well-defined domain. And you get to design your abstractions yourself, you don't need to implement standards that have evolved into shocking monstrosities.
The millions of lines of code in Windows...well, if you are counting all that as a single, complex product, go ahead, but it is actually a big collection of small, simple products engineering-wise.