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! ;-)
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.
In the post-Microsoft world I welcome our communist Linux overlords.
Microsoft is supporting communism AND cancer!? Well I knew they were evil but this is definitely a new low. For shame, Microsoft, for shame.
Does this mean I can finally run Linux under Wine?
Or Microsoft wants to be able to go "hey why switch to Linux, you can do the same thing on Windows, whats up with you silly commie?"
I like muppets.
make them run in a virtual server...
Freedom is strength, Ignorance is peace, War is slavery.
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.........
...does it run Linux?
it means you can run Wine on Windows.
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.
...if Linux'll run.
Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
Originally submitted without MS bashing as:
Hell Freezes Over-Thursday April 21, @08:37AM -Rejected
When you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness. So I got that goin' for me, which is nice.
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.
I wonder who will be the first one to run:
- Linux Running VMware running...
- Windows Running VirtualServer2005 running...
- Linux Running WMware running...
You get the idea..What he means is that virtualization will become a mission-critical function within the enterprise allowing customers to leverage their investments in legacy systems while enabling information technology staff to expand development using innovative technologies. MS is striving to develop best of breed technologies to provide its cusomers better TCO and ROI when compared with competing products.
Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
I ownder if this tactic won't completely backfire on Microsoft.
Ballmer is hoping that people will realise the value of Microsoft products because they give advanced interoperability with Linux and other OSes.
What may end up happing is that people will realise the value of Linux and wonder why they need to spend money and wasted CPU resources running Windows in the first place.
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
you inspire me.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
"I don't see the value proposition in Linux" is the kind of mindset likely to change within five years.
Asserting that the GPL is cancerous and free software advocates are communists is not.
The simple truth is, Microsoft (or, at least, Bill Gates) likely never truly believed either of those things. They said them because they thought that if people believed it, it would confer a business advantage for them. For another example of this kind of behavior, I refer you towards Bill's obvious flip-floppery on the issue of software patents.
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").
I booted Linux under Virtual PC a while back.
All they are doing here is adding it as a supported functionality. Not that that doesn't count for something.
Now if we could just boot Windows virtual machine from a Linux host with near native performence, then you'd really haev a break through.
Now that Microsoft has given the thumbs up to Linux on Virtual PC, I can slaughter one of the big objections people have to moving web servers off Windows: the developers don't have a Linux box on their desktop. Now they can install Virtual PC and set up a test environment there, which kills the problem and might get some Windows web servers off the net.
Not that I have a problem with Windows, but it makes a really *bad* web server.
Microsoft cheerleader, blue flag waving, you got a problem with that?
no, anything but the Gandhi quote!
My guess is that Microsoft will make sure that Linux works, sort of, but not quite right, or only specially modified versions will work. They will want everyone to see that Windows works better of course. So I don't imagine many people will end up actually using such a combination for Linux.
What happens to your Linux servers when you have to reboot your Microsoft servers?
That's going to skew the uptime reliability for Linux servers.
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
Linux is... a cancer. And we... are the cure.
is not the same as "announced suppot".
Nevertheless, MS has cleverly played the...
With MS you can run LInux but with LInux you can't run MS card...
How to read this from a business POV?
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.
Given Microsofts history of underhanded sabotage against competetion it would take a large leap of faith to trust any software of theirs to run another O.S. honestly. At the very least there will be some windows specific 'feature' that the virtualisation software requires to get maximum performance.
This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
(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!?
Virtual PC has supported Linux as a guest for ages already, long before Microsoft bought them out. What would be more interesting is if they brought back support for OS/2 as a host OS, a feature which they immediately removed after buying the company out. Of course I'd expect nothing else from Microsoft, but oh well, maybe Microsoft still feels threatened by OS/2?
Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!
Wouldn't running Linux on top of Windows be kind of like stacking bricks on jello?
hack a day
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.
The trick is, with server Virtualization (IMHO) never run production stuff. They're great, really great for test labs because you can snapshot and undo and you have other neat features. But they're horrible for actual real world work. If I was looking for a smaller form factor from my services in a production environment, for real, I'd go with a blade server chassis.
Ironically though with your virtualized Linux servers you could trick them into having indefinate uptime, since the OS running in the virtualization could be snapshotted and "frozen" in a state before reboot. VirtualPC 6 does this really well on the Mac anyway.
But actual server uptime count lost relevance to me years ago. The longer my uptime the bigger an indication that I should probably patch my kernel or core OS! :)
Luck favors the prepared, darling.
Intel, AMD, and IBM are all contributing to the Open-Source project Xen, which should support hardware virtualization as soon as it's available, and will no longer require re-compiling the kernel. In short, open-source VMWare will be here to stay. Microsoft HAD to respond in some way. Whether they can parlay this into another Netscape vs. MSIE and actually come out on top (for a while) is yet to be seen. Either way, it's awesome to see Microsoft being forced to give at least a tiny bit of their market to linux.
Windows inside Linux inside Windows inside MacOSX.
So instead of one cross-platform standards-based language embodying write-one-run-anywhere, we do it the long way around.
Yeah, this is a really great idea. "Our new PCs from Dell can run six different operating systems inside each other right out of the box. We call it the Mental Whiplash System."
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Why would anyone want to run Linux on top of windows
/me hugs vmware. Oh yeah, the host OS was windows. I was able to do my work without having the trouble of rebooting, installing , etc. So in this case (and i suspect many others) it was damn handy to have linux running on top of windows.
I've installed VMWare (workstation) on my pc at home. I booted a virtual linux pc, created a ramdisk image i needed, booted another linux pc and i used that image. All without rebooting the 'host' computer.
1)M$ gives up on Longhorn, has a BarBQue, adopts Linux and moves all its goodies over onto it.
2) M$ gets a solid OS base.
3) Linux gets a decent desktop. (Okay its no Mac but still.)
4) $$$
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
IMO the only thing that really kills Windows uptime stats are the security patches. If they could get better at patching without a reboot, those stats should improve quite a bit. If you're having to reboot your Windows servers weekly, something's wrong with the admin (or your software), not the OS.
The difference is that Linux is not just another competitor like Apple, Sun, Adobe, whatever. Linux is not another company, it represents and entirely new (re-hashed?) philosophy surrounding computer technology. As I see it, the transistor was invented in academia, the internet in government labs and academia; both free-and-open-information-sharing friendly (well not always with the government). Then corporate America swoops in, like always, and takes these concepts to market. And life is good? Sure, why not, companies move in to innovate and compete, Apple is born, Microsoft is born, and everthing is good? Well, no, not this time. Microsoft, through their tremendous monopolistic power, begins to shape our philosophies surrounding software and how it should be implemented. There is a lot of history around UNIX, Novell, Microsoft, etc. that some of the older computer-folks could do a much better job of explaining...
Fast-forward to the 90's. Suddenly the WWW enters public awareness. Suddenly computers become like American politics; you get two choices and both suck. (I'm sorry, but early Macs sucked - I love new Macs though.) Then I learn about this thing called Linux. I wander over to the CS library and grab Red Hat 2. Huh? The library? Free software? How good can this be?
Fast forward to 2005. Windows XP is now asking me to "validate my genuine microsoft product" before downloading the latest security update in a tidle wave of security fixes that can only be released by Microsoft because the source is guarded like the recipe for Coke. In the other room a native 64 bit Linux OS compiled from scratch (I love you too Gentoo) is humming away will oodles of software written by people from former Soviet Satellite countries, India, China, South America, Europe, Mexico... Meanwhile I'm being forced to run Winblows inside a virtual machine (VMWare really is a nice program) because the American Chemical Soceity and Cambridge Soft have succombed to the power of the Gates and gone out of their way to write software that won't even work with WINE. Then they require me to submit to their journals using said Microsoft-only software. They actually have the stones to charge $1200 per license for this software, in what is essentially a scam to pirate grant money. That just isn't right!
Linux is really the flagship for the battle between freedom of information and big-business' inability to cope with change. Open source software has problems yes, but it sets up a playing field where 16 year olds from Turkmenistan can compete with one of the largest corporations in the world. There is a sea change in that is flattening out the World thanks to the wonders of the computer age. The Army of Penguins is ready to leave fipper-shaped welts on the backsides of the mighty Empire and Slashdot readers want to be on the front lines, ears to the ground, sharpening our beaks, er swords, er motherboards..?
Oh, and you know they're running scared when they trot out the old "socialism is communism" argument. Pfff, by their definition labor unions and organized sports are communist.
Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
Longhorn's late. Yukon's late. Ballmer, the deadline for April Fool's jokes are April 1st.
[ducks]
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
It really just depends on what kind of loads the VS will be subject to. Once the VM Additions are installed they run a LOT better. That's one thing I'm really unsure of with the newly touted Linux support. If they don't have an equivilent, it could run HORRIBLY slow. Even with the VM Additions though, we've noticed about 60-75% disk access (read/write) on the virtualized environments so anything that requires significant disk I/O is going to really REALLY suffer. We use them primarily for our dev/demo/test environments and for secondary "production" work (get used only when the primary servers are being worked too hard). VS SP1 is supposed to be coming out and they're saying an "overall" 30% performance gain. Heh, what it really means we'll have to wait and see :-)
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.
>>This is virtually non-sensical to me.
As it should be. Only Marketing Weasels(tm) understand one another's mumblings. It lets them say things without really saying anything. The fact that this unintelligable banter is confusing to you means you're still a geek.
(Oh, and just for the record, that phrase translates into "Damn Linux! Won't it just go away?")
I sure hope you are doing the Integration testing in a TEST environment and not using your production machines! Large DataCenter and Windows is an oxymoron anyhow. Most very large datacenters are running a mix of boxes, a mainframe or two, Linux/Unix boxes and Windows boxes where it makes sense. Personally I think running VM on a mainframe and then running Linux in VM partitions will be far more cost effective than trying to run Linux under VS. I don't see how you can support a large # of Windows boxes in a datacenter with "limited" resources unless you guys are working 60 hours a week to keep up with things.
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.
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.
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.
But does it run OS/2?
for our current technology as academia and governement.
"As I see it, the transistor was invented in academia, the internet in government labs and academia; both free-and-open-information-sharing friendly (well not always with the government). "
Then you need to check your eyes. The transitor was invented by Bell Labs, part of the AT&T monopoly. Unix was also invented there.
Ethernet, the core technology behind the internet was invented by Xerox (funded by very valuable patents) and made a standard by Xerox, HP, and DEC.
Academia and governments have played a role too, but it's just not accurate to suggest that corporations haven't played a key role in the advancement of technology.
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...
>>"Organized sports are communist." C'mon, it's hard to be a communist union, when you are a state-sanctioned monopoly. Still, you've inspired a new tag line!: From each, according to their ability; to each, according to their marketability.
Linux Running VMware running Windows Running VirtualServer2005 running FreeBSD running PearPC running OS X running MoM running BeOS running Sheepshaver running Mac OS running Bochs running Linux Running WMware running...
We of the Linux Inquisition have one weapon. Our chief weapon is Fear. Well, Fear and Distros.
Um, we have two weapons. Our chief weapons are Fear, Distros, and an almost Fanatical devotion to the Penguin.
Err. The Linux Inquisition has three weapons - Fear, Distros, and an almost Fanatical devotion to the Penguin.
Plus, we run on MSFT servers.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
you get all the disadvantages of Linux with the advantages of massive downtime, unrealeased patches to Windows Server, and you get to pay tons of cash!
Cool!
Um, what was the question?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
One has been able to run all sorts of distros under Microsoft's Virtual PC for years.
For some reason, I've got a bad feeling that this is just all one big scheme and that M$ is going to purposely make linux run horribly under Virtual Server (ala their antitrust antics of old) so they can now have a shining example for the uninformed of how muc better Windows is than linux....
now where's that tinfoil hat....
Everyone should believe in something. I believe I'll have another beer.....
Think about it: if the "hardware" is standardized, there is no need for developers to create drivers anymore.
Biggest compaint among Linux users when new hardware comes out? "Doesn't work with XYZ video chipset" and "hey, is anyone gonna make a driver for my obscure WXY transponstermatic"? and the like. Once users realize they can run their Linux specific apps on a windows box for which the drivers are perfect, they won't load Linux as an OS. Linux as a native OS never conquers the desktop.
You used to package .OCX's with your application, then .DLL's; next it will be a whole mini-linux, acting as nothing more than libraries for a single application, running on a Windows desktop PC...
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
a) I can't see Microsoft willingly abiding by the GPL, and it would be a lot more damaging for them to attempt to release something which violates it.
b) Because of a) above, if MS do anything in the open source UNIX space, it'll more likely be with FreeBSD...simply because that will still allow them to make the rules.
On the other hand, an interesting route that they could possibly go would be to get involved purely in Xorg development. That way the underlying OS is provided by Linux/*BSD, (the area that Microsoft are *not* good at) while Microsoft continues working on usability/UI. (an area where they *are* reasonably good) The other thing is that the MIT license is still sufficiently flexible that it allows them the possibility of some protection for their IP if they desire it, as well.
If Microsoft were to come out with their own OSS DE/WM a la KDE, I'd use it, personally...or at the very least check it out. Not to sound too much like Laura Didio and the ZDNet crew here, but Microsoft DO have some idea of what Joe Six-pack wants...as they've been making large amounts of money from him for the last 30 years.
ah, the good old days when management came to the techies to ask what technology was the best for the job....
It was right about the time that MS Visual Basic came around that every shoe salesman turned manager started coming up with screen shots of "applications" they've written and that we should be able to put a product together in a few weeks based on that... It wasn't THAT bad but it did happen a couple of times and that was a couple of times too often.
The 80's were a good time to be in tech. IMO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Because the US is run by corporate overlords, who don't want wealth to be distributed evenly, because they wouldn't be overlords if it was. Add in the "American Dream", a belief that anyone can become a corporate overlord (which they can, but it's very unlikely), and the middle class will oppose communism as well, just in case they happen to become overlords as well.
Another reason is that the Soviet Union was a competitor for world domination for the US, and the most visible feature of the SU was communism, so it was a good buzzword to whip the masses into a frenzy for the World War 3 many people were expecting would break out between the two superpowers.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Microsoft acknowledges the Linux is a plaything and what better environment to play with something than in the nice little sandbox of a VM.
Geez. How soon we forget. An entire page of commentary and no one has mentioned it yet, but that is the Microsoft strategy.
Furthermore, there is no reason at all to believe that just because M$ says they bought VPC to compete with VMware that it is true. In fact, given Micro$history there's every reason not to believe it.
Anybody got a pool on when we see the first Linux patch from M$ - the one that will let Linux run on VPC? Remember Java - they didn't "break it", they just "extended" it.
And as for NT 4.0 support ... Phfft. They don't have any interest in supporting those kinds of antiques unless they're getting more $$ for it than they do for hacking together another OS-upgrade-support kludge.
I predict VPC support from M$ will be very short-lived; it's a near term wedge they can use to deceive a small fraction of a small market into spending some money with M$, yes, but the real goal has to be exactly what the kind of stunt they pulled with Java. Copy it until they can't get away with it - create proprietary extensions, then produce a clone with a different naming scheme, sanitized binaries, and no traceable legal relation to the original product. Once they have that VPC will disapear, support will dry up, and anyone gullible enough to have bought it will be told to "upgrade".
I'll say it again, Bill: the only thing you can do that stands a chance of keeping Microsoft in the software game long term is to release a Linux distro. Of course, you'll probably have to hire some developers, but from what I hear you won't have to pay US wages... Good Luck, and God Bless.
"The Internet is made of cats."