Slashdot Mirror
Will Munich's Linux Desktops Be Running Windows?
An anonymous reader writes "Remember that story about the city of Munich choosing Linux to power 14,000 desktop computers? One aspect of this story that most people don't know about is that up to 80 percent of those Linux desktops will be equipped with VMWare, a virtual machine emulator, under which they will run Windows and Windows applications. That's right, folks: The majority of those 'Linux desktops' will be used to run ... Windows." This Gartner report from early June seems to be the one mentioned in the article, though I'm not sure exactly where Thurrott gets the 80% figure.
interesting if it's true, although the article does specify a redmond source.
vmware is a great product for developing using a virtual network, and I'm sure they must have done their sums (they are Germans, after all)
My guess is that they must have a lot of legacy apps that they can't afford to update now, and that in the future they will use linux clients, but that they can start moving everyone to linux now to make the later switch easy.
Humorous signatures are over-rated.
No doubt in-house they're going to leverage the potential of Linux, getting applications custom developed for their usage and whatnot, while continuing to use Microsoft's superior products until something equivalent or better comes along. Eventually they'll migrate fully.
By switching to Linux for operating system, Munich avoids depending on Microsoft for technical support and product upgrades. While using VMWare allows continuous usage of existing programs and possible future migration to Linux. This decision allows CHOICE and FLEXIBILITY, which are what I believe Munich wants in the first place.
It often makes sense to maintain backward compatibility for a stage or two. If they were just going to run Windows apps they wouldn't need Windows at all. So clearly, if the story is even true, what it means is just that they have some 'legacy' apps they can't immediately replace. No big deal. Run VMware (or Win4Lin, or Wine, depending on the specifics) use Windows and the software for it that they've already payed for, but it gets them off the upgrade treadmill, and looking for *nix-native programs to replace the legacy crap.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Quite probably they have 100's of leagcy progarms, developed just for them, front-ends to databases and what not to be used by the police or whatever. Rewriting all of them would be quite a task... The process has just gotten started ;-).
Large orgs, (governments in particular) are seldom known for radical changes of course due to their size and institutional momentum.
So, if we replace the underlying system and keep the top, we've made a small turn. In the right direction, IMHO.
Also, they probably own the windows licences to be used w/ VMware, so there's no new costs there.
Besides, if you read the article, this guy is a hardcore MS zealot. The little blurb under "Glass Half Full Much?" and it's associated denial is pretty frickin' funny.
I think I need a new sig here.
Good grief. A little common sense would dictate that even if they are using VMWare, its not something to generate a whole lot of hulaballoo about. Everyone needs a transition period.
Munich has over 100 Windows-only custom apps! They can't be expected just to switch to Linux and loose those overnight.
Even *I* dual-booted Windows next to Linux for 2 years, and I'm a geek. Its to be expected, and isn't "Betrayal" or a "Loss" to Linux... it is the necessary progression.
Fact: Linux solution was 3 Million more. No way this covers the licenses for 14,000+ copies of Windows that is going to be required to run with VMWare, unless Microsoft is working behind the covers with the linux vendor and giving them a bigger discount then they were offering the city in the first place. Just other BS article to let us think that microshaft has won again.
Maybe they have tons of legacy applications running and are simply going to migrate those apps over slowly?
I've been to Munich, and compared to the rest of the cities I saw (Heidelberg, Cologne, Berlin, Potsdam, Dresden, Saarbrucken), it seemed pretty behind the times (regarding subways, trams, and buses). No doubt that their apps are old, too. You can't expect them to abandon their programs yet. I doubt they have Linux equivalents yet, since they were probably custom-developed for either the City of Munich or the Free State of Bavaria.
Slashdot is a waste of time. I enjoy wasting time.
I think it really depends on what they're doing with the Windows VM's. If they're booting up their Linux boxes, firing up VMware and spending the duration of the day in Windows, then yeah, that's pointless.
But if they're only using Windows/MSOffice under VMware to aid in the transition to non-MS software, and using Linux everything else, this could be a huge opportunity to introduce Linux on a large scale without pissing people off with OpenOffice incompatibilities, etc... IMO, this is a good thing.
While in an ideal world, the entire setup would instantly switch to a purely linux solution, the real world doesn't work that way. You'll always have people who are more comfortable with certain apps, and you'll have applications that just plain aren't available for Linux just yet.
By running the workstation on Linux, and by locking Windows into it's own little virtual machine jail, this accomplishes several important things:
1. Gets Linux on the desktop
2. Handles any/all remote display sessions, eliminating cost of a windows X-desktop solution.
3. Handles remote NFS mounts to *nix servers, eliminating *that* cost.
4. Allows users to continue with most of their work when the Windows VM bluescreens - reboot the VM and keep going.
As long as 3 years ago, a Linux desktop with VMWare running Windows was a viable solution from a cost perspective, and with the reliability and other improvements in VMWare, it's an excellent solution in a hybrid environment.
While many of us would prefer to be in a Pure Open Environment, the reality of the world is that this doesn't exist in many places just yet. Moves such as this will go a long way torwards getting us there, and in the meantime, there are a bunch of desktops which will be far more stable and usable than if they were running only Windows. I've been running this way for around 3 years now, and it's a perfectly viable solution. It gets Linux the exposure it needs, and the quality of the product will do the rest.
I suppose it would. That doesn't mean, however, that it would be better to run Windows. If only to force M$ (look I'm trendy) to perhaps change it's practices just a little, to start fixing flaws rather then visual appeal and claim "compatability" as a universal advantage. Even if they run a windows emulator, it is a step forward.
SAILING MISHAP
I have linux installed on my laptop with vmware running windows to have word. I generally write papers with my laptop. I would LOVE to get rid of windows but I need word because my school has it in the computer labs. I need to be able to print papers out at school, and most times I don't have time to fix the formatting and other misc descrepances I get from converting to .doc format.
I might be missing a solution to my problem, though, because I'm still learning how linux works (I did recompile the kernal and get wireless networking functional, and I'm proud of it dammit!)
----
Squirrel
Look,
Bad news would be a total reversal and going with a full MS solution. This is an intelligent, well thought out migration. As nice as it would be to have all Linux based apps at the changeover, it's just not going to happen. As nice as it would be for all systems to be rolled out with Linux and everyone be perfectly happy with their systems and no retraining required, it's not going to happen. This is an excellent migration strategy. Start porting your critical apps over to Linux over a period of time (months/years), keep your existing legacy apps running on Windows in a sandbox (ie. VMWare) so that the typical crashes don't bring down the whole system (just restart the virtual machine), and, best of all, keep everyone happy and content. This shows that IT was thinking of the users throughout the migration and have their best interests at heart.
To everyone blasting this as a betrayal or a PR stunt, work in the real world and do this for a living. Wholesale switches from one platform to another is not an easy thing from the IT side of things or (especially) the user side of things. This is warranted, justified, and just plain right.
These guys don't need yelling and screaming, they need a pat on the back for thinking this through thoroughly enough to see that not all apps can be migrated over yet and people still need to work, otherwise, they could have 14,000 new bright and shiny systems with only a handful of people actively doing their jobs while all of the others sit and twiddle their thumbs for most of the day (besides to send emails, type up some documents, and surf).
I love linux (as I state all of the time), but a migration of that size (or any size) has to be thought through from the perspective of not only IT and monetary considerations, but from the user standpoint as well.
CliffH
sigs are like a box of chocolates, they all suck remove the underscores to email me
I'm a Mac user myself. But Virtual PC has it's place. Alot of my job entails Visual C++ 6 programming, so being able to run that is nice.
I don't feel I'm betraying Mac because of it. Besides, how can you betray an inanimate object? There is a good article about fanatacism over computers. In reality they're just tools to help us accomplish an end. Whether it be saving the world, or getting that file off my digital camera and sending it to Aunt Sally.
Some people get attached to them, fight wars over them, etc... but in the end there are different computers, many capable of doing a job. Windows, Linux, BSD, OS X, IRIX...whatever. All are pretty decent.
If running Windows on Linux lets them do whatever they need to do, then who are we to criticize them?
Which explains why they are giving that excellent German firm, IBM, a buttload of cash in the deal.
"If, therefore, any be unhappy, let him remember that he is unhappy by reason of himself alone."
~Epictetus
If you buy a machine (for instance, from Dell) with Windows OEM installed, even if you destroy the machine, you can't reuse the Windows.
According to Microsoft.
But has it ever been taken to court? (Not that I would want to be the first one.)
Exactly. When transitionign to a new platform, any userbase is going to need to figure out how to transition their data over, find or create replacements for Windows apps, etc.
It's not like they're running Linux *just* to run Windows. I'm sure some of their apps will come from the Linux side, and some from the Windows side until their Windows apps are slowly phased out.
After almost 10 years of running Linux, I *still* have a small Windows XP partition for doing stuff like games or certain Windows-only apps. I spend the *majority* of my time in Linux, sure, this is still a very Windows-centric world.
My journal has hot
Moreover, if the admins mirror the VMWare disk image periodically, it's trivial to roll back any damage to the Windows installation that a user will inevitably introduce. Comet cursor and Bonzi buddy? Just roll back the disk image.
On the other hand, the latest pirated, 3d accelerated Windows games won't run well in VMWare, so users won't be tempted to install those. Again, that's great news for sysadmins.
Overall, Linux is just a great way of increasing the productivity of Windows users.
this start demonstrates already how serious a reader can take you: the city in question is Munich, not Frankfurt
They simply didn't want an American winning,
so IBM is not an american company? could you please let us know where their headquarters are?
and were willing to do anything, even pay more, to accomplish that goal.
i suspect most of the extra cost is training for the new environment, a one-time cost. the main reason microsoft's offer ended up being so much cheaper is that they offered to pay the extra training out of their slush fund, something that they most likely would not offer again on the next upgrade. with linux additional training on future upgrades should be considerably less.
and do you really think that the only reason MS can lose is anti-americanism?
Exactly.
I run Linux on my desktop at work, but I have an application that I need to do my job with that only runs under Windows (and doesn't work too well with WINE). So when I need that application I fire up VMWare and use it. Big deal.
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
OpenOffice.org still has its problems of handling files made with MS Office, atleast in my experience. I've had documents that don't get formatted correctly at all by OO.org which show up fine in MS Office. And as many others have said, they are making a huge change here and might have applications that they still need to use or have not found alternatives for, and given time, I'm sure they'll find something that accomplishes the same thing or more.
Its also probably safe to assume that they are making the change to linux for a reason other than PR. To the normal Joe Schmoe, he could care less what OS they use. They obviously saw an advantage to using linux or they would have stayed with the status quo.
Mark Loeser
windows crashes as a linux session start it up again.
windows crashes while hosting a linux session you're offline until it reboots.
windows crashes a lot more and needs reinstalling a lot more.
linux at the bottom of the stack works a lot better in my practical experience, plus it gets you headed in the direction you want to go.
'There is a Light that never goes out.'
Yes you can make the switch over night.
Maybe YOU can. You probably are pretty experienced and can tolerate some downtime. Unlike you, a city can't just shut down for a couple of months until everyone becomes proficient with the new system. People can't learn something suddenly. If you ever worked in technical support, you would know that proficiency is acquired pretty slowly.
Being able to take advantage of any Linux or Unix application easily has nothing to do with open source. Also, Windows can run *NIX apps under Cygwin.
Please sort your thoughts out (and have a more interesting point than "OSS ROX NUBZ") before posting next time.
Correcting the spelling of the name of somebody noone gives a shit about anyway is worth +4 informative these days?
Don't drop the soap, Tommy!
VirtualPC actually emulates an x86 processor, so it can run on non-x86 platforms (e.g. Mac PPC). But VMware uses the virtualization features of the x86 processors, and is wed pretty tightly to them. I imagine VMware does a nice business with its server consolidation products (ESX/GSX) and in the security industry.
I can't see MS cutting off VMware because people run Windows on what are primarily Linux boxes, since they still sell licenses. I expect the death of VMware as a desktop solution will come quickly, though, if Windows is tied to TCPA-like hardware a la NGSCB (formerly known as Palladium). Then virtualization of the kind VMware provides, which would allow access to memory of a running system from the eyes of an omnisicent (via the host OS) certainly won't be supported, and probably won't be tolerated.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
Let's see: Instead of desktops running a closed OS they now run a closed OS in a closed virtualization environment on a free OS. Yep. Way more control. I bet every admin will be amazed about that setup.
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
Ok, in reading most of the 3+ comments here, it looks like most slashdot readers here, at least the ones with a bit of foss experience, know that having vmware on a fat client migration from windows to gnu/linux in a business setting is a requirement, and there is no such thing as immersion or shock implementations of FOSS in a large business or government, unless you are trying to guarantee failure.
What everyone should be questioning, however, is why doesn't Gartner know this? Or do they?
If you have been following the juggernaut of gnu/linux, you are aware that gartner is slanting every report they can in favor of microsoft. Quite simply, microsoft pays many of their studies. What would happen to gartner funding if they started coming out with stories that said that it is cost effective to switch to gnu/linux?
Do you think that microsoft would continue throwing the same amount of money gartner's way? Especially when execs and government workers, the majority of which don't know their asshole from a donut hole, rely on gartner's reports for purchasing and implementation decisions?
microsoft has billions to grease the wheels. Should gartner piss off microsoft?
microsoft was so desperate to not lose the munich deal that butterball ballmer cut short his ski trip to try and salvage the deal. And when they tried once again at the last second to underbid the foss deal (which they were already underbid), one of the munich officials considered it "insulting".
So now, microsoft has to do everything it can to spin this loss as best as possible. Claiming that vmware/windows will run on 80% of the desktops smacks of tactics used in the OS/2 wars, similar to the current tactics of hitting Newsforge and Slashdot boards with "Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet". That's right. That phrase keeps popping up. When you see that phrase, review what went on during the OS/2 wars. If you are too young to remember, google the phrase.
microsoft will be spinning the munich loss for many years to come. This 80% figure, on munich desktops, is exactly this: spin. It won't even be implemented by 1Q04, and we already have spin that says that in munich, an IBM/Suse/linux win, microsoft loss, 80% of the desktops will be windows desktops because they have vmware installed.
What can Gartner do to make their reports more balanced? How about counting down time/reboots in their tco studies? Or counting how many servers a windows admin normally maintains, against how many servers a unix/linux admin maintains, in their tco studies? Or counting actual number of patches of actual number of installed and running services in comparable systems, instead of counting every patch of every application included in the major distros, even though microsoft has no functional equivalents, or is not running them on a particular installation. Does gartner include patches for microsoft office when comparing file servers? So why throw in patches for applications for gnu/linux distros that would never be included on a file server, as part of the total count?
In short, do you believe that gartner will do this? Have they done this in the past? Have you taken a look at their study that found that gnu/linux was cheaper only for web servers, and microsoft applications were cheaper for everything else on a tco basis? Have you taken a look at the criticism of this study? It's been covered here on slashdot previously.
The gartner tco study counted linux/unix implementations as costing more partially because linux/unix admins command a higher wage/salary. And higher technical skills. But they assumed that windows and linux/unix admins also administered the same number of servers. Anyone with extensive experience on both sides of the fence believe this?
What about hardware? No where in the gartner study did it mention or take into account that hardware requirements for gnu/linux is less than windows. No where.
Also, conveniently, the leng
Your are forgetting something. This pissing contest betwean Munich and MS is costing the taxpayers lots of money. Not only are the having to license multiple products for a lot of machines, they are also paying someone to set-up the machines and also to train and support the end users.
The ideal is reasonable, but my personal opinion is that they are stuck paying up after MS called their bluff.
"No amount of money spent on the Microsoft deal will allow them the level of choice they have now."
Did the taxpayers get any choice in this?
Just for the record, there is NO "off the record" record.
Make a record of that.
The MS deal was cheaper after Microsoft went back and slashed their prices dramatically. This is really interesting, because they are going to have to do this more and more. They may win most of their contracts, but it will be for a significantly smaller amount than before.
So, if Microsoft does nothing, Linux will win outright.
If Microsoft lowers their price to consumers, the end user STILL wins BECAUSE OF LINUX.
So, thank you GNU/Linux - even if you lose the fight, it was your involvement that forced the competition to actually start serving customers rather than raking them over the coals.
Engineering and the Ultimate
It has a *lot* to do with OSS. Having the OSS platform native on the desktop provides a number of benefits.
1. Good quality X server
2. Stability
3. Use of standard packages.
4. Incremental user familiarity with the OSS environment.
5. control of upgrade path.
6. More choice than that provided under a win32 environment.
These guys have thought things through past the short term. They understand the value an OSS environment will bring them. Sure, they are going to buy some licenses right now, but they will be able to control how and where and when they are used to a greater degree with this solution.
I also seriously question your supposition regarding win32 + OSS ease of use. My OSS experience so far has been most favorable when running a Linux desktop. Anything else (BSD, win32+cygwin, and other UNIX) just is not as elegant.
Nowhere did I say "OSS ROX NUBZ".
Why don't you get an account and back your statement up. My journal has a new thread waiting for you...
AC Indeed.
Blogging because I can...
(1) As VMWare is used, it allows the users to have a maximum amount of compatability.
(2) As VMWare is being used under Linux to run Windows, Microsoft has no cause to complain.
(3) As for speed; The majority of the applications I assume are being used, don't require the mammoth memory and CPU overhead (I doubt the government is going to be playing Q3 deathmatch on their systems, or watching a huge amount of pr0n) that the average 'Doze or 'Nuxers need for their computing "experience". If you aren't using it for those, it probably will be quite snappy, because math oriented apps don't need nor care about DirectX, OpenGL, et al.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
They can take those licenses running on VM's and continue to use them for as long as they want to regardless of hardware issues.
They can limit the interactive nature of those images as well. Strip them until they only perform the tasks required. No browser, etc...
Admin can be easy if they want. They can deploy the images on a central server or on each machine.
I think the admins will be amazed. Once things are working the way they can, the setup will have clear advantages. If a user hoses things up, copy standard image, restart VM, done! --This is easy now and will remain so even as the rest of the environment changes.
Because they removed the win32 apps and software from the hardware environment, they can and will be able to run what they have now for as long as they want.
Blogging because I can...
I believe the investment is worth it.
I do not believe they were bluffing. They had discounts presented to them. They could have taken them. This bluffing position you take is just spin --nothing more.
The taxpayers did not get to choose --maybe they should have. I live in Oregon and am a tax payer. Our legislature killed an OSS bill that would have made these sort of choices easier. Our legislature chose to keep feeding the beast in Redmond at the expense of jobs and dollars best kept here.
Munich at least chose a solution that stands to keep more of the dollars closer than they would be with a win32 solution. They also chose a solution that gives them a high degree of freedom from forced upgrades in the future.
The taxpayers will appreciate this over time.
Munich could have very easily done their people worse. The state of Oregon did...
Blogging because I can...
If you read the Gartner report you will see that it doesn't refer to any sources at all.
At one point it says "Munich hasn't yet disclosed the business case behind its decision." and at another "The business case assumes that many applications will not migrate to Linux".
Note that the source of the business case is carefully omitted and it doesn't refer to Munich's business case as that hasn't been released. I read it at referring to Gartner's own ASSUMED business case.
The article is just another imaginary pro-MS Gartner report. Move along folks...
Hmm, lets see why.....
- Having to reinstall windows on systemst that just "stop working".
- Having to take care of Antivirus software.
- Having to maintain license information for a company that may very well raid your facility with armed government agents if they feel you need an audit.
- Once the dog and pony shows are done..the reality is no matter where you purchase it, there is really only ONE vendor. MicroSoft.
- Not having the ability to get inside an modify any drivers or other OS software to meet company needs
Need I go on?The Citrix farm solves some of problems above. The workstations are just "boxes", if one dies, just toss another one in there. Everything that is important lives on the server. Licence's are easier to track if everything is installed on the server. Installing apps, taking care of virus isues,etc, all easier to handle on the Citrix farm.
Then of course, there are the advantages of a *nix based system over the Citrix farms....
vi +
It often makes sense to maintain backward compatibility for a stage or two
Actually, this is great advertising for both VMware and Linux, as it suggests that the migration need not be that radical at all. I suppose MS would never want to emphasize how they aren't "really" migrating at all, as it is in their interest to keep corps/orgs in belief that in order to migrate, they have to abandon all their legacy stuff.
Actually, this Munich case is a proof that almost any org can migrate, without any special computer usage pattern (web uis only, for example). Perhaps, after a few years, they will notice that Wine will do all their remaining win16/win32 stuff.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
I would contend that "office paper pushers" would probably have less trouble with a migration to OpenOffice from MS office for example then a poweruser. I say this because powerusers know all the shortcut keys and are more tied to the features and quirks of the system as a whole.
Simple users still know how to type into a Word or Writer document. In both apps, the save and print buttons still look the same.
Perhaps they want to run vmware on systems that need to use the apps that are not yet ported to Linux, which would seem like a sound strategy.
It's also compelling to note that it appears to be more cost effective to "upgrade" to Linux, spend money on the migration and training, and run VMware (man, all those licenses must cost a ton) - then it is to upgrade to Windows XP and Office XP, even with all of the discounts that Balmer threw in at the last second.
Upgrading to XP still means you need to spend money on training, migration and ensuring that the needed apps still actually work.
They probably bought the full retail with commercial software added on SuSe Linux, which costs about the same, or more, than Windows.
You only buy one copy of SuSE instead of one copy for each machine....
Given the MS Licensing policy, they probably have to buy new copies of Windows to run in VMWare anyway, since the licenses are non-transferable (and all that).
I do not know German law but European law in general does not recognise licensing and they only need to keep to copyright laws. i.e. they can sell old copies or transfer to another machine all they like as long as they do not use it on 2 machines or sell copies of it.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
I've been researching about Open Source.
Munich choose Open Source because O.S is a "strategy enabler". Cost came second.
Think it for a second. If something gives you flexibility and more choises for you strategy ultimately means that it provides you with more axis of freedom in your strategy. You can maneuver better in the long run.
I predict that this property of O.S will be more importand than cost in the future.
kanenas
I think it's more likely they're using VMware to provide access to legacy apps that can't be easily replaced or ported. The desktop will most certainly be KDE/GNOME with OpenOffice. It's unlikely that VMware will launch into fullscreen mode and hog the desktop immediately after logging in.
GNU/Linux desktops with VMWare for virtualized access to other systems -- be they legacy MS Windows, GNU/Linux, or other, makes tons of sense.
First, you've kicked the monkey off your back, er, desktop. The principle system is Linux, and the end-user application space is more than adequate for general business computing. Depending on the services SuSE and IBM can offer, the flexibility and management of this solution will be worlds above what a Microsoft environment could offer. And running VMWare on GNU/Linux to serve legacy MS Windows makes far more sense than hosting it the other way around given the stability, configurability, and performance of GNU/Linux.
Second, VMWare is a great product -- words I'm not prone to utter about proprietary software in general. The high-performance general system virtualization niche is one that VMWare has fully locked up. I've used the product since first public betas in 1999, and none of the other alternatives I've tried -- Bochs, Plex86, UML, WINE, or dosemu -- hold a candle to it for ease of configuration, versatility, stability, or performance.
Third, VMWare provides an awesome way to manage a large number of desktops. Within the virtual machine, the hardware configuration is identical for all systems. The only differences are processor speed, memory, and availability of specific peripherals which don't exist on the host system. However, all devices -- disks, network cards, sound, monitor, etc. -- are the same for any VMWare virtual machine. Any system-specific drivers and related configuration is a non-issue.
Fourth, VMWare allows access to multiple configurations, which may be accessed simultaneously. In part this is a box Microsoft has launched itself into with gusto. A trivial example is browsers: one side-effect of the tying, er, integration of MSIE with the legacy MS Windows product is that it's not possible to run multiple variants of an MSIE browser since version 6.mumble. With VMWare, it's possible to run different configurations of, say, Win2K and MSIE. It's also possible to run different legacy MS Windows OSs entirely: Win3.1, 95, NT, 2K, XP, and their variants. Simultaneously (a respectable system should be able to support 3-4 concurrent virtual machines if necessary). Support desks worldwide already find this invaluable. It's likely that Munich's aquired a motley mix of applications which run in a number of specific environments -- VMWare is likely one of the best ways to make these conveniently available to workers.
Fifth, the virtual system images themselves are nothing more than file snapshots. These can be stored and served centrally (again reducing maintenance issues), and eliminating again the overhead of creating and installing thousands of systems -- rather, a few standard file images are served centrally. User-specific files can be served over the network from your GNU/Linux Samba server.
Sixth, VMWare's rollback and checkpointing means that for a given image, it's possible to run a system either with no commits (all changes to the running VMWare image are lost on exit, great for highly specific tasked workstations), or can be committed or discarded as an option, on system exit (useful for development). In either case. backing up the image file prior to use allows for recovery later.
Seventh, once you've kicked that Redmond jones, "deinstalling" the now-worthless virtual system is a snap.
I'd say Munich's going to have an excellent, flexible, configurable, stable, and useful system.
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
"Up to 80 percent of those Linux desktops will be equipped with VMWare," it says here (my italics).
Do you think they could be any more vague?
Let's mentally replace the words "up to" with the less-than-or-equal-to-sign <= to understand that statement.
In other news... up to 80% of people enjoy reading Microsoft propaganda newscasts!
They are running VMWare as part of a migration strategy. This is exactly what MS itself is going to do in the future - why do you think MS bought Connectix Virtual PC? Because they need a way to migrate people off NT 4.0, and it provides a path.
Munich needs this interim step since they probably have a bunch of Windows apps that doesn't exist under Linux yet. Heck, they'd probably have the same problem if they went with Windows anyway (trying to get their legacy apps running on a modern version of Windows).