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."

Comments

Balmer takes 5 years to change his mind

[Hulkster]

The commmunism article is dated July/2000 and the cancer one is dated June/2001 ... so I guess Balmer (who is quoted in the TechWorld article and here's the actual Microsfot Press Release) has changed his mind after 5 years ... I guess with regards to Linux, maybe he feels that if you can't fight 'em, then join 'em.

Enjoyed my fun little christmas hoax - help me do it for real in 2005! ;-)

Re:Balmer takes 5 years to change his mind

[sepluv]

Makes me think of Gandhi's stages of fighting for freedom:

1. First they ignore you
2. then they laugh at you
3. then they fight you
4. then you win
5. My corollary: then they say they were with you all along

I thought we were at GhandiCon 3 with Microsoft but this has shades of GhandiCon 5 (my corollary).

Re:Balmer takes 5 years to change his mind

[Sheepdot]

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?

Re:Balmer takes 5 years to change his mind

[Locutus]

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

Re:Balmer takes 5 years to change his mind

[Master of Transhuman]

And Bill Gates comments about "open source communists" was last year.

Your point then is what?

First post?

If Ballmer's comments have any meaning at all, it means Microsoft's virtualization project will be devoted to breaking Linux when it runs on a Microsoft host so MS can claim Linux is broken.

Re:Balmer takes 5 years to change his mind

[Belial6]

You are going to run Windows. MS bought VirtualPC for two reasons.

1) So that they can have a thin client server that works. Run images of full OSes on virtual machins, and a low end machine with just enough juice to run Remote Desktop can now be use quite well.

2) To resolve any problem they will ever have with backward compatibility.

<prediction>Your custom application doesn't work with the new WinServer 2010? No problem, an NT4.0 image with all the drivers that VPC emulates compiled in (to tie the image to the host OS) is sitting on WinServer 2010 with VirtualServer. Just mark your application as a NT4.0 application, and it will run just fine.</prediction>

With VPC, MS no longer needs to release new versions of every application they ever made just to upgrade the OS. On my system VPC gets 80%-90% processing speed compared to the native CPU. They could do some work on memory and HD speeds, but that will come. This means that as long as Visual Studio runs at decent speeds inside of VPC, MS doesn't have to upgrade it at the same time as the OS.

With VPC MS doesn't even have to stay on the same hardware platform. If a new (or old) CPU takes a huge leap of speed due to some breakthrough, and it becomes significantly faster than the x86/AMD64 platform, MS can move all windows software to the new platform by porting Windows, and VPC. This would immediatly make them a player in the new market.

Buying VPC was the smartest thing I have seen MS do in years.

previous comments?

[AviLazar]

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.

Re:previous comments?

[macaulay805]

Even a stone can change with time.

Sir, you give me hope with that comment about my parent-in-law. Thank You.

oblig

[MrNonchalant]

In the post-Microsoft world I welcome our communist Linux overlords.

So let me get this straight

[mindaktiviti]

Microsoft is supporting communism AND cancer!? Well I knew they were evil but this is definitely a new low. For shame, Microsoft, for shame.

Finally!

[mathmatt]

Does this mean I can finally run Linux under Wine?

Or..

[Turn-X Alphonse]

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?"

If you can't beat them...

[darthgnu]

make them run in a virtual server...

no

[JeanBaptiste]

it means you can run Wine on Windows.

Departmentalisation...

[Manip]

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.

Virtual Server ain't done...

[arpad1]

...if Linux'll run.

Hell Freezes over

[killproc]

Originally submitted without MS bashing as:

Hell Freezes Over-Thursday April 21, @08:37AM -Rejected

Re:they turned back!

[Nijika]

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.

LMAO

[tacocat]

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..

Re:LMAO

[tgd]

Imagine a beowulf cluster of those!

Can you cluster the external Linux box with the internal one?

Re:LMAO

[meringuoid]

You'd need a separate licence for each iteration... Of course, if you set it up just right you could send a Microsoft lawyer into an infinite loop, which would be a pretty cool science fair project.

This is cool

[CDarklock]

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.

Cue Agent Smith

[McGregorMortis]

Linux is... a cancer. And we... are the cure.

Sabotage

[Lead Butthead]

(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."

wtf?

[SpongeBobLinuxPants]

Wouldn't running Linux on top of Windows be kind of like stacking bricks on jello?

So now I can...

[suitepotato]

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."

Very late to the party

[UnknowingFool]

Longhorn's late. Yukon's late. Ballmer, the deadline for April Fool's jokes are April 1st.
[ducks]

Not really

[Mr_Silver]

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.

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.

Just think! Running Linux on Windows Server

[WillAffleckUW]

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?