Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Wants Xen In Linux Kernel
DIY News writes "Red Hat is aggressively pushing to get Xen virtualization technology included in the Linux kernel as quickly as possible. This move comes as Microsoft is pushing its own virtualization products and recently relaxed some of its licensing requirements around Windows Server 2003 to facilitate more pervasive adoption and use of those technologies."
"My goal is to get this done in the most collaborative way possible with anyone in the community who wants to participate," Stevens said, adding that Red Hat is committed to putting on this project enough of its staff who have the technical knowledge necessary to get the work done.
Perhaps it's only me, but this doesn't sound aggressive; this sounds friendly and cooperative.
Ask me about repetitive DNA
Why don't they fork? Or just build and rpm their own kernel, like they did with GCC 2.96?
The more advanced the technology, the more open it is to primitive attack
Well.. Microsoft *could* try paying me to run their solution.
Believe with me, my saplings.
Sun can do this now with Solaris 10. Virtualization is a cool technology, and everyone in this space seems to be heading there.
-- Bryan
Virtualization technology is a very good thing. It allows you to use multiple operating systems at once, without fights for hardware control (which is why VMWare doesn't do it like this). But, if it's doable in hardware, it's doable in OS level software. Why didn't anybody do it then?
Put differently, how are AMD and Intel going to make it work? Since hardware doesn't like multiple masters (try a PS2 mouse with 4-5 byte protocol, it completely freaks out with a KVM switch), it's going to go haywire if you have multiple masters. Unless, of course, you don't. If all is virtual, make the entire computer virtual and let the OS meddle in the virtual space that's left after that. Include drivers for anything you like in the virtualizer core and let that start up the "OS".
The OS can then not use all features of the hardware, but only those given out by the virtualizer core. There's no escaping it, since it's the replacement for your BIOS. Combine that with the concept of Trusted (Treacherous) Computing and mix in a bit of Fritz chip and BIOS replacement Intel is pushing (as well), what do you get?
A computer with only drivers and everything (yes, EVERYTHING) in a checkable state, in which your OS doesn't even control the computer anymore, but the virtualizer. You don't want to change that one, since it renders your computer unusable. You do want to change that, since it renders your computer unusable. The state in which you control anything on your computer is becoming a paradox.
*puts on tinfoil hat, goes back within cage of faraday in radio-silent zone*
No, the sane part of you should be saying "Red Hat is nothing like Microsoft." So far, their own goals have been anything but sinister, and every other distro on the market has benefitted from the time and money they've invested in gcc, the kernel, and any other number of projects.
They've done nothing anti-community since dropping free Red Hat 9 support years ago. Get over it.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
No, both are quite specific it's the *GPL* they don't like, not Open Source in general.
That's the retarded part of you. Learn to ignore it.
The Slashdot summary is a bit misleading. What the article says is that Andrew Morton has been expecting a kernel submission for Xen for quite some time now but a) has yet to receive it, and b) needs to go through the usual process with other "stakeholders" before any incorporation. Later the article quotes the Xen folks themselves who point out that "feature creep" and the need to generally get things really solid and stable has made everything take a little longer.
What the article actually seems to be saying - it uses the word "agressive" a lot as if this was some kind of virtue - is that Red Hat has a new senior honcho who'd like to make his mark. The issue of incorporating virtualization technologies into the Linux kernel is taken as a given by all parties. Which is hardly news. Chalk one up to the Red Hat marketing department for a nicely planted "news" story about their increased investment in the area (new hires, etc.), perhaps.
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
For the exact same reasons that I prefer the GPL to every other open source license. If you release code under a BSD-ish license, Microsoft can co-opt your work into a proprietary product directly without playing the same open source game that you are.
11*43+456^2
In desiring to put Xen in the kernel, they have already failed.
Obviously it's not particularly speedy when loading binaries off the CD, but it gives you an idea of the potential.
That's only illegal if you're already a monopoly. It's illegal for Microsoft to do that, but not for, say, Red Hat. They're not supposed to leverage their monopoly position in one market to dominate another.
As a rather off-topic aside, it strikes me that Sony and Microsoft selling their game consoles at a loss is doing exactly that. Sony makes some profit now on their game division, but Microsoft has lost billions.
From this armchair, that sure looks like classic monopoly abuse.
I will freely admit that is it silly to dislike RedHat. And that for the most part the reason alot of people dislike RedHat is simple because they are the biggest and most known of the Linux Distros.
Have they done anything sinister? Not yet. Will they? Who knows. But it's fun to complain about them =]