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."
which seems an upgrade from its previous status as a communist cancer
This was said five and four years ago (respectively). Sheesh - you know companies can change mindsets....Even a stone can change with time.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Seems that it would be the other way....if you 'needed' windows for something...you'd fire it up on top of Linux (or other Unix type OS)....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You need to keep in mind that Microsoft is a very large company and each department is so large that it is almost like a company within its self. So if it is bad for the Windows Server team that the Virtual Server team has done this, well too bad. The Virtual Server team needs to keep their product competitive and they are just telling it as it is; they are an x86 system virtualizer and need to support popular x86 platforms, if they didn't then they deserve to die off.
This is no different than when Microsoft released an Office for Mac. Naturally the Windows platform teams and managers didn't much care for that but Office saw it as an opportunity. The people doing the name calling are the ones within Microsoft that are competing against Linux not the ones that couldn't care less either way or want to port their projects to Linux to improve their customer base.
In my opinion, when we see a dominant Linux platform (e.g. desktop environment, tool set etc) then we will also see a copy of Microsoft Office released. Microsoft will follow the market with most of its products.
This is for server virtualization, so it makes some "sense" in this context. It's a choice at least. For my money though it would surely be VMWare if I was going to virtualize a few test servers around the office.
Luck favors the prepared, darling.
And since we are not mind-readers, our only source of insight into Bill Gates' head is, well, Bill Gates.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
This wouldn't work. Everyone would point at VMware with Linux running correctly. So, anyone interested in emulating Linux would ditch the MS virtual PC, and go for VMware instead.
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
(from Webster online)
Etymology: French, from saboter to clatter with sabots, botch, sabotage, from sabot
This affair reminds me of the DR-DOS and Windows 3.1. All M$ has to do is to "support it" and quietly make sure what "support" they provide is broken in some strange way, and place the blame on Linux to [I]sabotage[/I] its adaptation. This way at a later date they can make the claim "users have made their choice. Linux is out."
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Ignoring the age of the quote I see no reason why a company can't provide support in their product for a product they dislike or compete against. Hell, you've been able to import non-Microsoft file formats into their applications for years.
Especially if it's going to mean that they're actually going to have a more competitive product or bring them more money.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
It's not that he's given up fighting Linux, it's just that they are trying to make the best possible product, and what good is VirtualServer 2005 if it doesn't support *nix? Seriously, what other operating system are you going to run on x86 that isn't open source or a derivative of the "communist" OS?
We just started using VMWare GSX Server on Win2003 and it is both a cool concept and thusfar has been working really well.
For us the idea is we have a half-dozen 1U boxes that are getting old and need to run basically stand-alone environments; they don't play well with other software environments. Budgetarily replacing the 1U boxes with new 1U boxes that meet the hardware standards is ridiculously expensive _and_ a complete waste of disk, CPU and I/O capacity, not to mention power, heat, etc. The current boxes (dual P3 700s) sit at near-idle all the time and don't have much, if any, local storage or I/O demands.
As it stands right now, we have 4 virtual systems (1 freebsd, 3 win2k) running on a dual P4/3.2 xeon server using 1-10 percent of CPU capacity. We have about 6 more systems we'll migrate over to this environment and I seriously doubt we'll get beyond 20% CPU utilization. Plus we can easily clone some a template server and have a test or eval box going in about 5 minutes. You can also snapshot a virtual disk so that you can rollback to the checkpoint point (great for upgrades or testing), or just clone the entire virtual disk.
It works best with systems that have low I/O and CPU demands or bursty demands; I wouldn't do it with systems that have high I/O or CPU demands. You can dedicate physical LUNs to VMs, but it kills some of the flexibility in exchange for performance.
For the wags who criticize me for not running it on Linux or using their high-buck ESX product: We looked at ESX, and management of the ESX system we thought was excessively convoluted and the performance for our needs not meaningfully different. We have no problems with stability on 2003, either, plus we're a FreeBSD shop, not a Linux shop, and we didn't want to BS around trying to run GSX under FreeBSD, as it wasn't a supported host OS.
I figure this is way more the future (since it is the past on OS/390) of computing than blades, especially once its merged with SAN virtualization. Now if only Intel would give us a CPU capable of complete virtualization. I also think that eventually MS will merge virtualization completely into the OS, and will license you on total CPUs and total concurrent images.
Never ascribe to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
MS Press release, 2007:
"New distribution format makes the OS irrelevant"
"they are also going to license their virtual disk format royalty free"
Now, if MS at some point included VPC on every desktop OS -don't laugh, it could happen, say five years from now- think of the possibilities.
An "application" could be comprised of a very minimalist custom OS + only the specific functionality for the application needed. With a virtualized PC, you've got a completely standardized hardware platform, although one that is hardly performance oriented. For instance, the older VirtualPC used what, a virtualized 2-d video chipset without much "hardware" acceleration. You could package up an entire single-application Linux system in a very optimized disk file. The O/S need never be seen by the user.
The next step will be customized vitual hardware+driver modules for VPC plugin, consisting of vitualized higher performance video chipsets, RAID, etc. Instead of "DLL" hell, ten years from now we'll have some sort of virtual hardware hell as the single simple standardized vitural hardware platform expands...
Just remember how Microsoft SUPPORTS a competing product. Remember JAVA? And there was also the JDBC driver for MSSQL, that took them 1.5 years to release after announcing that they would support JDBC.
In other words, what comes out of their mouths, is not what really happens. Or the results are not any where near what people EXPECTed. They have their own language and it's a dialect of marketing-speak. IMO.
Still at GhandiCon 3 IMHO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus