Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Next Virtual PC Will Run Linux
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."
Will Microsoft play fair, or will they dampen down the capability to make linux look like it doesnt run well?
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 still sell as a standalone, for instance. And if so, will it in the future?
Also this leaves open the possibility of Windows specific optimizations, features, etc. Heck, those things are done already long before MS bought them out. Note: I'm not claiming this is a bad thing.
I believe what it says is this: If you have a problem with your linux app under virtualpc, then you go to your linux vendor for support. And if your linux vendor in turn finds that the problem is due to some bug with virtualpc, that is, the same thing does not occur when running linux natively on a pc and so is due to a problem with virtualpc only, then the vendor can submit a bug report to MS about virtualpc and MS with work with the linux vendor to fix the problem. 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.
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 to Linux and buying VMWare ($24+$300). In the end a friend who is a Microsoft employee gave me a copy of XP Pro from their corporate store which cost them $20, making choice #1 even cheaper!
IMHO VMWare is just too expensive for home users like me. Their price is comparable to buying a whole new machine. (They used to have a $99 home edition which they dumped).
I also detest the VMWare support. I have a bootdisk (Bart's BootDisk) that has booted on every real machine I have as well as several friends' machines, and VPC. It just crashes under VMWare. VMWare also doesn't understand dual monitors (try making a window go full screen).
I duly entered support issues for these at the VMWare support site and never got any form of response. I should also mention that I tried VMWare on another machine and it just refused to run claiming my license key was invalid. I think it is due to some anti-piracy broadcast on the network scheme they have going. Of course they never answered my support requests, nor could I try it on another machine.
So VPC it is for me when Microsoft will finally agree to take my money.
I think it was primarily for XBOX2. As everyone knows XBOX 2 will not use an intel chip. One generation backward compatability is quite important. Buying Virtual PC gave them the opertortunity to go with a non intel chip and the purchased a company least venders uped the price for a licence once MS was commited.
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.
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.
Like what I said? You might like my music
The connectix price included a license of Windows for the $200+ price. You could buy the $99 one with a DOS license (at least, for the mac), but it was still the same product and allowed you to install (any number of) your own OSs.
Unless you do get a license of Windows thrown in (which I doubt), then it isn't an undercut but a price hike.
Anthony
Don't gloss over this part of the article:
"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!!!
Since X-BOX-2 runs on the new Power CPU from IBM (juiced up version of the one in the new MAC) they needed the ablilty to run older XBOX and PC software in emulation. That's why they bought VirtualPC. They don't care about the linux aspect at this point in time.