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?
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.
'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
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
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 $250.
I saw the article already, but based upon M$ 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.
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>