Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft to Support Linux in Virtual Server
zaxios writes "Techworld is reporting that Microsoft has announced support for running Linux on their virtualization software, Virtual Server 2005. From the article: '[Microsoft] can't compete against VMware without support for other operating systems.' Perhaps the significance of this is that Microsoft has acknowledged Linux as an OS people might want to use, which seems an upgrade from its previous status as a communist cancer."
Enjoyed my fun little christmas hoax - help me do it for real in 2005! ;-)
You could run other a Linux opsys but it was not supported. This is to level the field with VMware and nothing more. Of course this is good for those supporting Unix/Linux installs on our windows desktops. This merely acknowledges what has been going on forever. Windows rules the average desktop. Unix (and now Linux) rules the average server room. This is they way things have been for years and years and I don't expect many changes. This is not the sign of an impending move for Linux in the desktop space. Sorry, zealots. Be happy Linux will rule the server room, but don't hold your breath for the desktop revolution.
This is virtually non-sensical to me. Can anybody explain this to me in English?
With more powerful server hardware, even in the "WinTel" arena, it's possible to coalesce a number of previously disparate servers onto one box, reducing the total cost of ownership. This is especially true for fragile we-have-no-clue-how-to-migrate-it legacy apps running on old hardware and software - there are migration tools that will virtualize the server, exactly as it is, so it's running as a process on a spanky new box.
Of course this is much ado about nothing - Virtual Server and Virtual PC both support Linux just fine. They just don't officially support Linux (so instead of picking Linux as the OS, I have to pick "other").
Interesting. Your "TFA" points to a story at Mithuro about China and Taiwan, while your quote includes many important PageRank keywords like Windows, Ballmer, virtual, Linux and technology.
Nice try at boosting your Google Rank. I'm not buying it.
for christ sake go and recompile your Kernel or something....
For those of us with large datacenters and limited resources, Virtual Server is great for throwing something in the mix and seeing what sort of integration we get.
Imagine a beowulf cluster of virtual Linux servers ... all running on the same physical Windows server! ;-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
VMware doesn't care what you run as a guest OS. I can basically write my own OS and it will boot. It emulates the virtual machine from the bare metal up, starting with a POST.
Additionally, you can install XP on a partition or drive, and then access that drive directly via vmware (it's one of the disk options, since vmware 4, iirc). So you should be able to install XP, install Linux, install VMWare, and then set up the XP partition[s] under VMWare just fine. I think that should work.
--
Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
Otherwise known as "cost centre accounting". Each department is a cost-centre and needs to reach targets for the year.
If those targets upset another cost-centre, well, too bad. If they pandered to the whim of every centre then you'd have no product, wouldn't reach your targets and the whole department would be laid off.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Any CGI that is not supported by a module like mod_perl or mod_php has to run as a separate process whether you use IIS or Apache
I have, and after years of hacking Solaris and Linux I was stunned to discover how bad CGI performance was under Windows, forking (or starting) processes in win32 is significantly more expensive than in any UNIX. For this reason my organization has moved to ISAPI under IIS and apache modules under apache to get reasonable performance on win32.
As an aside, CGI under IIS with an untweaked anti-virus is slower than molasses in January in Val d'Or.
Now windows isn't all bad, it's just a question of what you do with it! My home PC is used 90% of the time for gaming, so what do I run? XP! Why? Because I don't want to spend a weekend messing around with kernel modules to support my video card correctly just so I can discover that my new game only kinda works with WineX.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
The reason Microsoft NEEDS virtualization software is because their OS can't do it. Most shops end up with atleast 2 systems running the same server software for fail-over. And MS servers fall over way too often. And because of this, many shops only run one or two services per server so that when one goes down, it doesn't take out the other. So, in the brilliant move to Microsoft servers, shops have ended up with something like the tribbles on "Star Trek". The server rooms are full of machines that are pretty much under utilized because the OS can't handle the load.
In comes the virtualization software. Now, one PC can run 2+ copies of Windows Server with each one running one service. The PC now gets more fully utilized running Microsoft. The fact that same PC running GNU/Linux or UNIX can run 10+ services without breaking isn't that big of a deal.
Oh, and BTW, that product HAD GNU/Linux support when they purchased it. When Microsoft released their first version of it, they said it would still run GNU/Linux now but that they wouldn't support it. Now, they say that they'll "ADD" support for GNU/Linux at the end of the year because customers want this..... Why does it take a company the size of Microsoft, with Microsofts money, 8 months to support something they said is already supported? I'll tell you, THEY DO NOT REALLY WANT TO SUPPORT GNU/LINUX. They'll drag this out until anybody who actually is expecting GNU/Linux support finally finds something else or they all get calls from Microsoft with sweet deals of free Microsoft software for a year on a 5+ year contract.
That's my take on this and I do not believe this company has changed. It's the same marketing they've always had and new victims who'll believe them. IMHO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus