VMware to Make Server Product Free (as in beer)

yahyamf writes "CNET News.com is reporting that in the face of increasing competition in the OS virtualization market VMWare is going to give away its GSX server product for free, in the hope that customers who try it will eventually migrate to the more powerful ESX server. The company recently released a free VMWare Player which could only run but not create virtual machines. The company faces competition from rival products such as SWsoft's Virtuozzo, Mircrosoft's Virtual Server, as well as open source software like Xen"

Comments

hey don't leave out qemu

[jomas1]

If you are going to list software that will let you run an operating system from within another don't leave out qemu ahref=http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/rel=url2 html-2228http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/>

Qemu may not run as fast as vmware does now but it's here, it's free and you can change whatever you want about it. The same is not true for vmware

Re:hey don't leave out qemu

[base3]

It'll let you assign an arbitrary MAC address. VMware won't. Thus, VMware is inferior in that regard. Why do proprietary fanatics think they need to be apologists for commercial software?

Re:hey don't leave out qemu

[birder]

What are you talking about? VMware allows you to make the MAC address anything you want. Edit the config file and change the generatedAddress for the ethernet controller.

Re:hey don't leave out qemu

[base3]

Try changing the OUI (first three bytes) to something besides 00:50:56. It's impossible without patching the binary. So if you're trying to run a honeypot or have some other reason for not wanting users or others on the network know your VM is a VM, VMware is not the right product.

Re:hey don't leave out qemu

[Frank Palermo]

"Qemu may not run as fast as vmware does now but it's here, it's free and you can change whatever you want about it. The same is not true for vmware"

Well, to be entirely fair, that's because they do two different things. Qemu does CPU emulation, VMWare does virtualization. There is a module for QEMU that implements direct code execution (on x86 at least), but as per its webpage here, it is a "free to use, but it is a closed source proprietary product," so you can't exactly 'change whatever you want about it'.

-Frank

Re:hey don't leave out qemu

[Ed Avis]

If you just want to run Linux under Windows, why not CoLinux?

Re:hey don't leave out qemu

[kbnielsen]

No, vmware lets you assign a MAC address inside the range 00:50:56:XX:YY:ZZ, which is quite reasonable, since this block is assigned to VMWare, and thereby they avoid to conflict with other MAC's on the ether... They also avoid a whole host of problems with people faking mac addresses and such, so I think it's quite reasonable to have this practice...

Re:hey don't leave out qemu

[Professor_UNIX]

Why do proprietary fanatics think they need to be apologists for commercial software? Because VMWare produces some fantastic products. I couldn't care less if software is commercial or not as long as it fits my needs and my budget. There is simply no open source alternative to VMWare right now that even comes close to what it does at the speeds it does it. Quit being a blind open source fanatic and look around the world sometime. The vast majority of people have no problem paying for software if it fits their needs.

Re:hey don't leave out qemu

[VirtualMorrigan]

That must be a new restriction, then...when I was still using VMware 3 years back, I know I had set my MAC address to something like 01:01:01...don't remember the rest and haven't got the config file online. But just for the record, it was possible.

Re:hey don't leave out qemu

[Anonymous Coward]

has to test a product on certain distros?

Re:hey don't leave out qemu

[Anonymous Coward]

Because that's not what most people really want or need. VMWare lets you have many different virtual machines with several OS'es (Win 2003/2k/XP etc, several distros/versions of linux, BSD, etc), test machines (to try installers/deploying stuff/beta software, etc), virtual servers (for several DBs and other server soft you don't want permanently installed on your PC), etc. Nothing against CoLinux, but it's of no use to me.

Re:hey don't leave out qemu

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because the author of qemu deserves some serious funding.
Fabrice is also the person behind ffmpeg, the mpeg decoded used in most players out there (even commerical ones).

Linux distributions back in 1991 were a bunch of hippies, but today we are talking about corporations that make billions. So it's time they start giving back. No free lunch for those who can afford it and should pay. (after all we keep hearing about mythical venture capitalists that "fund" OSS. Let's see if this is true...)

Qemu is in the top 10 of projects that deserve VC funds.

Re:hey don't leave out qemu

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you still live in your mothers basement ?

Re:hey don't leave out qemu

[fitten]

That may be true but VMWare is useful for many, many other things like virtualizing servers (web, mail, etc.) and doing cross platform software development (like I do - run a client VM and a server VM in whatever OSs I want) where we don't care what the MAC is as long as it is unique.

Re:hey don't leave out qemu

[uberjoe]

VMware allows you to make the MAC address anything you want

Slackware allows this as well. Its called MAC spoofing

Re:hey don't leave out qemu

[deltatype0]

You speak truth sir

Fact is, while I'm young (22) compared to probably the majority of the tech industry, I like many others in my generation, grew up on DOS, Windows, OS/2 (yes, we had a old Pentium 100 running dual boot OS/2 Warp and Win 3.1 in our house) and other non open-source software. I didn't know Linux exsisted until sometime around 1999-2000 when my dad started looking into it more for his job. Today I still use Windows because it fits my needs. Sure I could use Linux, and I do for webserver related stuff, but Windows works for me in a workstation enviroment. I have no problem paying for software if it works. I also support OSS that does a better job than commercial alternatives. It's about choice.

Re:hey don't leave out qemu

[jyanix]

What is wrong with living in the basement?

Re:hey don't leave out qemu

[squoozer]

Blatant advert alert! I recently put together a page about running XP under Qemu. It's a bit tricky to get working (due to a bug in XP) and dog slow but if you must have XP under Linux this is a solution that works. I use it to test websites in IE.

Re:hey don't leave out qemu

[Anonymous Coward]

And what it makes to you that your os of choice (OS/2) have disapeared despite quite a fan base just because it was closed source ?

Don't you think that you should invest in non-closed source knowledge ? Because the knoweldge I acquired 20 years ago (on UNIX) is still usefull today. The knowledge I acquired 15 years ago (think-C, then metrowerks on mac os), or 10 years ago (EOF on NeXTstep), is now useless because those products have been killed.

Makes you think.

I have a vmware license, I use it when I need it, but I don't invest on it. It will dispear some day. I am ready to spend more time learing how to use free software, because it will not be obsoleted because of some corporate strategy.

Re:hey don't leave out qemu

[base3]

It is a restriction on what the user can do with the product based on something VMware doesn't want the users to do -- they even added code to enforce the restriction. While this is trivially patched around, it's the wrong attitude for a vendor to have towards their customers.

Re:hey don't leave out qemu

[Anonymous Coward]

Because mine didn't throw me out for being an obnoxious twit.

Re:hey don't leave out qemu

[homer_ca]

Qemu is nice, but there's enough bugs in the CPU emulation that it's not ready for production use. It's nothing some more investment can't fix.

Re:hey don't leave out qemu

[floop]

The original statement that VMWare doens't permit arbitrary MAC addresse is true. You are restricted to the VMWare OUI. This doesn't allow for Multicast MAC assignemnt along with a ton of other legitimate reasons to manually set a MAC outside the OUI.

The "vast majority of people" live on 2 dollars a day and don't have computers. The vast majority of computer users don't purchase software that didn't come on their computer. The vast majority of IT depts don't purchase software without some sort of justification. A good IT person would be able to evaluate their needs and match to the appropriate solution given resources available.

Doesn't mean that VMWare doesn't rock. Just that there are considerations you and other failed to take into account when marking the parent as flamebait.

Re:hey don't leave out qemu

[Anonymous Coward]

NO THEY DON'T!!!! They allow you to set the mac address to a VMWare registered mac.. So you can set it, but only under a specified range.

Re:hey don't leave out qemu

[Tim C]

And what it makes to you that your os of choice (OS/2) have disapeared despite quite a fan base just because it was closed source ?

What makes you think OS/2 was his OS of choice? It was only one of several that he listed.

Don't you think that you should invest in non-closed source knowledge ?

He ends his post by saying "I also support OSS that does a better job than commercial alternatives. It's about choice.". Did you even read it?

Re:hey don't leave out qemu

[killjoe]

"There is simply no open source alternative to VMWare right now that even comes close to what it does at the speeds it does it."

Not even close? Not even a little bit? I thought XEN was actually faster then VMware.

I am curious to know how you eveluate "not even close". I think most rational people would say that QEMU and XEN are "close" to vmware if not eclipsing it in performance or features.

Re:hey don't leave out qemu

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course I did. This is why I replied.

"I also support OSS that does a better job than commercial alternatives"

Even when OS does a worse job than the commercial alternative, it may, after a few years, still be alive, while your commercial software have been axed due to internal politics.

I do use commercial software, and I even buy some. Hell, I even bought a license of VMWare.

But i disagree that Free Software must only be choosed when it does a better job than the alternative. If Free Software is good enough, it will last forever, or if replaced, it will be replaced by something compatible and better. This is not the case in the commercial world.

Give me a single example of Free Software that disapeared without replacement. I can give you plenty of example of Close Source software than disapeared without replacements (Hypercard, Newton, EOF, Pink, Lisp OS, RagTime, and countless of others).

(And, for the record, what makes you thinkg that OS/2 was not his os of choice at the time, as he clearly said first windows, then OS/2 ?)

Mmm?

[Anonymous Coward]

So where can I find this free beer everyone keeps talking about?

Re:Mmm?

[jzeejunk]

you won't find it since this one's virtual! :p

Re:Mmm?

[stevenharman]

FREE BEER (tomorrow)!

Re:Mmm?

[tbumpus]

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
unexplained beer..........

Re:Mmm?

[spitzak]

Obviously somebody who never went to college.

Re:Mmm?

[Seraphim_72]

BWAAAHAHAHAHA!!! I almost spit soup reading your post. Nice one.

Sera

Re:Mmm?

[BrynM]

So where can I find this free beer everyone keeps talking about?

It's not free as in "given away to you", it's free as in "can run away from you" - which it is obviously doing well.

Mircrosoft

[raffe]

I bet this is more because og Mircrosoft than Xen. When Mircrosoft is moving into a field competitors usally shiver....

Re:Mircrosoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Not as much as anybody who speaks proper English shivers when they "read" your post . . .

Re:Mircrosoft

[Darth Daver]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have absolutely zero interest in Microsoft's VM products. Xen, on the other hand, does intrigue me. Nothing compares to VMware today, though.

Re:Mircrosoft

[oni]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have absolutely zero interest in Microsoft's VM products.

Yeah, but the way the world works is that people who wouldn't normally even think about VMs will think about them for no other reason than the fact that it came for free with their OS. Microsoft will have a button somewhere labeled, "click here to make this a VM" and people who don't even know what a VM is will click it.

Don't believe me? Take a look at the form that comes up after you install Win2k3 advanced server. The form is labeled "Configure this Server" and it has a checkbox labeled, "make this a DNS server" and the word DNS is underlined. When you click it, if gives you the definition of DNS. Isn't that great? If you don't already know what DNS is, then you don't have any business setting one up. But that's the microsoft way. That's their target audience.

How hard is it to sell a DNS server to these people? "Do we need DNS? Wait, don't we already have that in windows?" VMWare is understandably worried that their product will soon be viewed in exactly the same way. "A VM? Do we need that? Wait, we already have it right here, just click that button"

Re:Mircrosoft

[homer_ca]

True. VMWare GSX is more similar to MS Virtual Server (based on Virtual PC acquired from Connectix), and MS already said Virtual Server is being bundled for free with Longhorn Server. Xen + Intel VT can run Windows guest OS's too, but Xensource doesn't have a comparable commercial product yet for the corporate market.

Intel VT

[lisaparratt]

I would have thought the most scary thing facing VMware is Intel Virtualisation Technology - it makes what was previously very hard fairly simple. It also doesn't require the guest OSes to be hacked, ala Xen.

I suspect we can expect to see a huge swathe of hypervisors being released over the next few months, if only so x86 Mac users can run Windows apps!

Re:Intel VT

[rfinnvik]

VMWare's real "killer app" in my opinion is VirtualCenter/VMotion. The management tool is better than anything else I've seen for managing virtual infrastructure - and the ability to move live VMs between hardware nodes is just impressive :)

Re:Intel VT

[Slashcrap]

I would have thought the most scary thing facing VMware is Intel Virtualisation Technology - it makes what was previously very hard fairly simple. It also doesn't require the guest OSes to be hacked, ala Xen.

Oh wow. You actually believe that having Vanderpool means you won't need something like VMWare.

Well this will blow your mind - the latest VMWare has Vanderpool support. It doesn't make a great deal of difference by all accounts. Why would VMWare have Vanderpool support if Vanderpool makes VMWare obsolete. Doesn't make much sense does it?

I think you may be suffering from a hype overdose. I suggest you check in to your local ER for a stomach pump. Alternatively try being a little more cynical in future.

Re:Intel VT

[lisaparratt]

The hard part of virtualising x86 is having to rewrite guest code on the fly to make sure it doesn't do anything that'd break it out of it's sand box. Vanderpool alleiviates the need to do this.

This changes writing a hypervisor like VMWare from a very, very difficult challenge to just moderately taxing.

This totally changes the landscape - VMWare won't be obsolete, it's just going to have an awful lot more competition in future. The few technical advantages it has over the competition are now handed to everyone on a plate. They've now got to focus on mindshare and administrative ease, since they can no longer rest on their technical laurels.

Re:Intel VT

[TheRaven64]

There are two parts to virtualisation:

1. CPU virtualisation.
2. Peripheral virtualisation

The first of these is practically impossible on x86. VMWare and VirtualPC (x86 edition) manage it using some really, really, ugly hacks that kill performance (and then some more hacks to boost performance). Xen works by ignoring the problem. An operating system on Xen must be ported to not use any of the x86 instructions that don't easily allow virtualisation.

The second is not very hard conceptually. You just need to do some kind of multiplexing and then expose your devices as if they are a fairly general device of the category. While this is conceptually simple, it is practically a lot of work. Again, Xen dodges the problem here slightly be requiring that the domain 0 OS supports the hardware, and then providing generic virtualisation routines for various categories of device (consumer VMWare and VPC do the same - not sure about the server lines).

VT / Vanderpool / whatever make the first of these much easier (about as easy as it's been on RISC machines for the past decade or so and on mainframes for the past three. Yay for x86). They do very little for the second part of the puzzle. On PowerPC or SPARC, it might be possible to implement OpenFirmware drivers for hardware that are virtualisation-aware (IBM's servers do something a bit like this). I don't know if EFI has this capability; if it does then things like VMWare might become obsolete.

Oh, the final part of the puzzle is clustering. Xen and the server-grade VM systems provide clustering support which allows virtual machines to be transparently migrated between cluster nodes. This is quite useful, since you can run N VMs on M machines, and squeeze the low-activity ones onto a small number of nodes, then have then migrated to their own node when they are under high load.

Re:Intel VT

[Glen Ponda]

I think you may be suffering from a hype overdose. I suggest you check in to your local ER for a stomach pump. Alternatively try being a little more cynical in future.

But try not to be so cynical that you come across as twisted and bitter. It's a fine line...

Re:Intel VT

[ThePhilips]

It definitely sounds good. At least it removes another 'contra' from long list of IA-32/AMD64 and PowerPC differences. As many of you have known for some time people who run Linux on PPC enjoyed free ride with Mac-On-Linux project. Check http://maconlinux.org/

On side note, after seeing how easy virtualization can happen with Open Source kernels - e.g. User Mode Linux, Xen, Plex, coLinux, etc - me keeps wandering why M$ haven't done that with WinNT kernels. There are only few true obstacles in x86 "architecture" which prevent effective virtualization - VMware is solving all of them at very high level and of course tried in past to charge premium for that. Xen modifies kernel so that overhead of virtualization is negligible - it's not another computer emulator, it's just kernel running as a ordinary OS process. (Anyway, user tasks see computer only as it is reflected by kernel and device drivers (-: )

I know M$ likes only good cash cows (like M$ Office franchise) but as OS kernel concerned, the modifications to allow it to run in virtual machine are truly not that big. Check-out the coLinux - it's neat. http://wiki.colinux.org/cgi-bin/ConvertingDistribu tions

P.S. Or is it what M$ Windows Advanced Server for?

Re:Intel VT

[jcnnghm]

Xen can also move live VMs between hardware nodes (only non-responsive for tens of milliseconds). It's going to be a very powerful tool once all chips have virtualization capabilities.

Re:Intel VT

[Zuke8675309]

VMotion really makes ESX sweet because you can separate the server image from the hardware and move it around at will - good for uptime.

Re:Intel VT

[Znork]

"They've now got to focus on mindshare and administrative ease"

And price, price, price.

Frankly, I dont know many ESX users who havent been swearing over the price, which has more or less made it just barely cost effective in many situations.

While I've been an avid VMware fan, they've lost me because of that. Despite their moves in the right direction, it's simply too little too late. Even with GSX free, I find Xen a vastly more interesting option.

So many companies tend to underestimate the level of negative mindshare they can build when they abuse their position and gouge their customers.

Re:Intel VT

[cruelfood]

You're a bit misinformed about device virtualization, at least the way VMware does it.

Devices aren't merely multiplexed. They're virtualized (or emulated, if you prefer that term.)

What's the difference? For disks, the virtual machine doesn't see the actual disk controller or disk. It sees an emulated IDE or SCSI controller, and the virtual machine's disk storage is backed by a file in the host operating system. Reads and writes to the disk file go through normal Windows or Linux file APIs on the host. (Raw disk passthrough is possible, but it's still more complicated than multiplexing.)

For network devices, the virtual machine sees an emulated NIC. (AMD PCNet32, Intel E1000, or VMware vmxnet device, depending on the VM.) Packets are sent on the physical network via the Windows or Linux networking layers. To receive incoming packets, the host's network card is put in promiscuous mode, and packets destined for the virtual machine's MAC are filtered to it.

Other types of devices are fully emulated. Video? The VM has a VMware SVGA card. Updates to video are emulated, and the contents of the virtual frame buffer can be displayed via VNC, the VMware remote console, or drawn via X or Windows GDI calls via the local UI. Other types of devices in the virtual machine, like interrupt controllers, the chipset, and so on, are fully implemented in software. No "multiplexing" is done with these devices.

I also disagree that the processor emulation is a "hack" that "kills performance." While x86 is not trap-and-emulate style virtualizable, binary translation is hardly a "hack". And it hardly kills performance. Projects like Dynamo have been improving performance of compiled code by dynamically translating it. And Intel announced plans to kill off x86 emulation in IA-64 hardware, because their software solution was good enough.

Re:Intel VT

[tres]

Virtuozzo has vzmigrate, but in a real production environment where you're migrating customers between hardware nodes, the arp-cache is your enemy much more than the few seconds of down-time that a product's migration tool incurs.

Re:Intel VT

[Anonymous Coward]

Projects like Dynamo have been improving performance of compiled code by dynamically translating it

  Dynamo was a research project. The killer: the last 1% of functionality that can be avoided in a research project
optimizing SPEC benchmarks but needs to be supported to have a product. It turns the small performance boost
into overhead. At some point the whole effort is not worth the complexity.

Re:Intel VT

[kma]

Uhh. No.

Re:Intel VT

[myowntrueself]

"Xen can also move live VMs between hardware nodes"

Given shared storage...

So you either have something like fiber channel (vey expensive), iSCSI (doesn't look production-ready on Linux) or NFS root (pity the fool that relies on Linux NFS servers in a production environment).

Any realistic, production-ready, Linux-based shared-storage alternatives that don't cost like a bazillion dollars?

Re:Intel VT

[man_of_mr_e]

VMWare isn't solving all of the problems of virtualization. New OS's are taking more and more advantage of advanced hardware, such as 3D desktop rendering, composition, etc.. Many games are also very difficult to play under virtualization because there's no virtualization of the underlying DirectX architecture to support hardware features. Then there's the whole host device virtualzation problem for everything but sound and video. USB is coming along, but thigns like TV Tuners, or other PCI/PCIe devices are not available.

There's a *LOT* of work to go yet, but virtualization for common desktop apps is pretty solid these days.

Re:Intel VT

[jcnnghm]

I haven't seen any information that suggests shared storage is necessary. I skimmed this paper on the subject, and it appears that all that is necessary is a network connection so that the memory can be transferred.

Apparently they found it to be responsive enough to even work effectively with Quake 3 servers, taking about 60ms to get the new node operating. If you are talking about the data that must be accessed on disk, then how does VMWare skirt around the issue? Reliable shared storage may be expensive, but a virtualization cluster isn't exactly cheap either.

Re:Intel VT

[snark42]

GNBD or GFS. Possibly Coda or AFS as well.

Re:Intel VT

[myowntrueself]

"Possibly Coda or AFS as well."

I've worked with both, had problems with both.

Coda though, is especially disasterous; its not production ready unless you happen to be at Carnegie-Mellon University. If you happen to be located there then you have enough support to consider it production ready. Otherwise its just junk. Seriously. I wasted a LOT of time on this.

For one thing, its incredibly inefficient and can't be made more efficient without major refactoring of the code due to extensive debugging code thats liberaly sprinkled throughout it and which can't be turned off.

For another thing, if a client tries to access a file on the server thats larger than the *client* side cache the *server* crashes. Last I heard, this was regarded as 'can't fix won't fix' by the Coda team.

AFS, well I've tried that too and it seems a bit better off but I didn't think that it could be used for a root filesystem in Linux?

GFS? I plan to try this out at some stage when I can get my hands on some surplus servers and time... but it seems to be only really well supported on Redhat?

Re:Intel VT

[Anonymous Coward]

The binary translator is really only the second hardest part. The hardest part is virtualizing the MMU.

Vanderpool doesn't address the MMU at all, the virtual machine monitor has to provide a performant page table shadowing mechanism. Pacifica has "nested page tables" as an extension, but the first shipping hardware will not support it.

Re:Intel VT

[ThePhilips]

"...such as 3D desktop rendering..."

That actually puzzled me for some time.

I'm not sure about DirectX, but in case of OpenGL it's quite clear: you can very easily pass OGL calls from guest OS to host OS. State of OpenGL is held completely out of application. Probably the same is possible with DirectX.

I just wonder why it wasn't ever done.

P.S. I heard rumors that such functionality was poised to make appearance in VirtualPC 7. Before it was bought by M$. But to my knowledge there is nothing like that in VPC7...

Re:Intel VT

[snark42]

GFS is ok, but I think you should checkout GNBD. The Redhat thing might be true, but you can get it going on Debian and other distributions. I'm still experimenting with it, but things seem ok thus far.

Good Move!

[greyspk]

At last they started to realise that it's the support services and not the actual cost of a product which helps you grow. Now if they could only give VMWare Workstation for free, they would be able to successfully compete with the catching up competitors, especially the already open-sourced ones like Wine or Xen.

Re:Good Move!

[jaseuk]

GSX does all you need. So why if GSX is free would you need workstation?

Jason.

Re:Good Move!

[jruschme]

Which leaves the even bigger question of where this all leaves Workstation?

Player makes sense... small run-only environment, embeddable, etc.

But if GSX goes free what would a pricy workstation offer?

Re:Good Move!

[greyspk]

I haven't compared them 1 to 1, but I would expect that GSX has higher requirements for your server, both memory and CPU wise. If that is not the case, you're absolutely right - GSX is all I'm going to need. One more positive side is that open sourcing GSX may trigger few separate public projects based on it (depends on what license GSX sources will be provided under).

Re:Good Move!

[Zathrus]

q[One more positive side is that open sourcing GSX may trigger few separate public projects based on it (depends on what license GSX sources will be provided under).]q

It's provided under the "here are the binaries; you may not reverse engineer them" license.

Read the topic again -- free as in beer, not free as in speech. Just because I give you the beer for free doesn't mean I have to provide you the recipe.

Re:Good Move!

[StDave]

It is free as in beer, not as in speech. The source will not be opened from what the article says.

Re:Good Move!

[jaseuk]

Well the only major difference between GSX and workstation is that GSX allows you to control startup / shutdown of virtual machines so that they can start at windows boot, it also supports remote administration and I believe you can manage the machines through their other tools such as VirtualCentre. I don't believe there is any great difference in system requirements for GSX over Workstation.

Ultimately GSX, Workstation and player are all essentially the same technology. ESX only differs by being a custom linux distribution making it very easy to install and a web interface to control operation and a few enterprise features such as VLANS and the VMotion addons. They've also moved some of the virtual machine I/O and handling into a kernel module rather than running in userland to gain some sort of performance advantage. Rather strangely ESX seems to be slow at supporting iSCSI. Of course there are also tools to limit bandwidth and control CPU usage on individual machines, whereas with GSX and Workstation it's a free for all.

Personally after trialling VMWARE ESX and GSX I actually prefer GSX. The "grow on use" disk type available for GSX is certainly better for small single use servers, flexibility to grow and keeps image sizes down for backups. I also really miss the client CD-ROM and floppy support which again is absent from ESX. The control panel also seems quite flakey.

Personally I feel that VMWARE have got the pricing structure wrong somehow. The only way to truely consolidate is to use big machines (20-30GB RAM) the problem here is that the cost of 4GB RAM modules is rather prohibitive, then add in some server redundancy and all the VMWARE licensing fees and it doesn't make sense any more. I'd actually prefer to pay a reasonable cost per active virtual machine, that way we can keep redundant hardware and move machines around as we see fit for performance or DR purposes.

I'm quite keen for GSX to be free or cheap, it'll then make cost sense to consider a VMWare strategy.

Jason.

Re:Good Move!

[g2racer]

Here's my take on why Workstation is still a viable product, it's not meant to be a server virtualization product. We use Workstation for development and testing. Development because it allows us to deliver a consistent developer image to 30+ developers across the globe, and testing because each image contains all the tools required to run unit and system tests on our code base. We also don't need to worry about what the developers are using as a host OS (they could be running Win2k, WinXP, or Linux). We use ESX for server virtualization, meaning we have ESX running on big 4 CPU boxes which run our portal 24x7. For these purposes, both products work great. I've noticed that Workstation supports newer OSs than either GSX or ESX which is good for people using Workstation to test different OSs.

Re:Good Move!

[jbarr]

jaseuk wrote:

"GSX does all you need. So why if GSX is free would you need workstation?"

According to the Data Sheets found here:

http://www.vmware.com/pdf/gsx_specs.pdf
http://www.vmware.com/pdf/ws_specs.pdf

GSX requires a "server" host, while Workstation does not:

GSX:

Host Operating Systems
Runs on Microsoft Windows 2000 Server and Advanced Server; Windows Server 2003, Web, Standard, Enterprise and x64 Editions, and Linux server host OSes

Workstation:

Host Operating Systems
Windows 2000 Professional and Server, Windows XP (32- and 64-bit), Windows Server 2003 (32- and 64-bit)
Popular 32-bit Linux distributions from Red Hat, SUSE, Ubuntu and Mandrake; select RHEL and SLES 64-bit

-Jim Barr
http://jimstips.com/

Re:Good Move!

[paradizelost]

Multiple Snapshots. GSX Does not have them, workstation does. and let me tell you, It's damn nice.

Re:Good Move!

[jbarr]

I forgot to add...

Which means that users running Windows XP cannot use GSX, and must use Workstation.

I haven't actually tried to install GSX on Windows XP, so I can't verify if an install fails or not.

Re:Good Move!

[BestNicksRTaken]

Workstation has always had the new features before GSX, like virtual-SMP, VT support, new OS support etc.

I see it as what Fedora is to RHEL. I wonder if it will stay that way, or if "Server" will take that role?

Thing is, The Register article says that "Server" will include those features, so I guess its either a bastardisation of WS 5.5.1 and GSX 3.2.1 or it's just a newer version of GSX than the currently 3.2.1

Re:Good Move!

[koadic]

As the parent says, Workstation lets you keep a practically unlimited tree of snapshots, which is great for testing. Server can only take a single snapshot. (Sure, it can be copied and stashed somewhere manually, but the Workstation interface is much nicer and the incremental shapshots more efficient.)

Re:Good Move!

[andersbergh]

I've successfully used GSX in XP. It doesn't even tell you that your OS is unsupported when you install it.

Re:Good Move!

[scottnix]

The ONLY thing that ESX doesn't support that GSX DOES is modification of the VM config file through the VM console application. But since you can modify it using the web based tool (it's call the VMI or MUI), this isn't lacking.

There are a few very important things MISSING in ESX that enterprises might need:

VMotion:
The ability to move a VM from one physical host to another without powering off the machine.
VirtualCenter:
Manage all your Virtual Machines and Host Machines from one console. It also has a web service which you can use to programatiacally control your VMs for autoprovisioning.
VMFS File System:
The VMFS file system is what holds the Virtual Disk files on the "custom OS" that runs the VMware Kernel. This is opposed to a standard Linux (or Windows) filesystem that would hold them in GSX. This file system is specifically designed to hold files larger than 4GB. This is a VERY high performance file system. When you have 20 VMs running on the same Host, you will notice a difference.
Hardware separation:
The host OS only uses a small fraction of the physical hardware. It will only see 1 CPU on a multi-CPU system and it will *see* as little memory as you tell it to see. This results in dedicated resources for your VMs.
As far as the licensing is concerned, for a larger company, I can't see $7000 for a 4-CPU system as being cost prohibitive. They don't charge you per VM, they charge you per CPU (physical CPU).
In my company I spent about $66k on a VMware rollout. If I had not used VMware I would have spent close to $200k on hardware and software.

ScottNix

Re:Good Move!

[scottnix]

The only thing you can't do with GSX on XP is run the GSX web management UI. That part doesn't work out of the box but I'm sure with some tweaking someone could get it to work.

ScottNix

Re:Good Move!

[BigBuckHunter]

I'm quite keen for GSX to be free or cheap, it'll then make cost sense to consider a VMWare strategy

You may wish to hold off for a bit untill VMware decides to fix the PDflush/cache issue with newer linux kernels. Having the host take a crap every time multiple guests untar large files is beginning to give me the red arse.

An Enterprise shop that uses VMWare
BBH

Re:Good Move!

[InsaneGeek]

Actually ESX server is much more of a different beast than just a custom linux distro. The linux distro people are used to is basically like the DOS boot disk under the old novell days. You boot up an esx server with the linux distro kernel, it than loads up a secondary special vmware only kernel and that is loaded it kicks out the linux boot kernel. At this point there are 2 this the linux distro is used for: userland management access of the vmware system, and in version 2.5 owns the physical I/O devices (network, scsi, fibre), in version 3.x I/O access supposedly won't have to go through the service console operating system anymore and the linux distro will be a complete virtual machine only used for boot strapping up the specialized vmware kernel and managing the system.

The specialized vmware kernel allows for some interesting things to be done: (overcommit of ram to vm, much closer to native speed, etc) that can't be done elsewhere; at first glance it looks the same, but under the covers they really are different beasts.

Re:Good Move!

[Anonymous Coward]

13. Does ESX Server Run on Linux? On Windows?
ESX Server runs natively on server hardware, without a host operating system. The ESX Server virtualization layer is a highly compact and efficient operating system kernel entirely developed by VMware for optimum virtual machine performance. This allows ESX Server to fully manage the hardware resources and provide the highest levels of security and performance isolation. ESX Server also incorporates a service console based on a Linux 2.4 kernel that is used to boot the ESX Server virtualization layer. It also runs ESX Server administration applications.

VMWare ESX Server FAQs

SECONDED

[hummassa]

I use QEMU everyday in my day job, so now I can boot my desktop in Linux... I use Delphi7 inside QEMU and it works flawlessly (not blazingly fast, but acceptable)

Re:SECONDED

[xtracto]

I used to run QEMU also but now that Vmware player is free I run that instead. As I am just an "end user" who do not really need to modify the code, I only use it to run Linux on my Windows computer.

Re:SECONDED

[j0217995]

I use a combination of them as well to run Linux on my windows box. If you use qemu to create the image file in vmware format you can then setup any vmplayer file to run any operating system. Currently I have the following image files, Ubuntu (Breezy), Ubuntu (Dapper), Windows 2003 Server, Debian, and BSD. All files were created first in qemu then I installed through VMPlayer. Runs as well as an official VM Player file available for download. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/VMwarePlayerAndQemu for more information.

Re:SECONDED

[martinultima]

Well, even though I've used QEMU quite a while (and even wrote the first version of its Wikipedia article!), I have to say that I prefer VMware myself. For one thing it's a lot faster – very important if you need to test the next version of a Linux system right now without any delays – and I also just like the program better.

And then there's the licensing issue – while I appreciate QEMU being free and all, I don't like how the KQEMU module's proprietary software that can't be freely distributed. I'd much prefer to just have a completely proprietary solution that works than to have a half-free solution that doesn't really do much for me. Although if I knew how to write virtualization software I'd have my own solution anyway ;-)

Oh, and remember Bochs, what we used to have before QEMU? I remember spending hours just toying around with that program... ran Windows 95 pretty nicely, and before I switched to Linux it was rather nice to have a virtualization program that ran reliably on Windows 98SE.

Although now I'm a Linux user and addicted to VMware, so why should it matter? ;-)

Re:SECONDED

[martinultima]

Oh, and yes, I know you're probably going to flame me for something or other. Linus Torvalds never got any peace during the BitKeeper days, right? But to be completely honest, the few virtualization programs out there are all so radically different, there really just isn't as much to choose from – unlike with, say, operating systems or Web browsers. I have a solution that meets my needs, so I think I'll stick with it unless I see something that's truly worth switching to.

And I have to say, I do appreciate VMware's releasing GSX free. Besides, who knows – I'm willing to bet that if the competition gets strong enough, they'll eventually release their source code. Probably is a long shot, but anything is possible.

Whatever the case though, VMware still kicks ass.

What about existing customers?

[tumutbound]

I'd certainly be pissed off if I'd just paid $1400 for GSX only to be told this week it's free.
I've been paying for regular updates to VMWorkstation over the years, does this mean I can stop and just use the free products?
That said, it's still worth the money I've been paying.

Re:What about existing customers?

[ds_job]

Just imagine if you've just been done for downloading it off a p2p network and applying a cracked serial. That'd hurt. I'm not speaking from experience, just imagining...

Re:What about existing customers?

[meringuoid]

I'd certainly be pissed off if I'd just paid $1400 for GSX only to be told this week it's free.

Why? If you thought $1400 was too much for the product, you wouldn't have bought it. Since you bought the product, clearly you thought that what you were getting was worth more than what you were paying for it. So you were happy with the deal you made with VMware. Surely you are not petty enough to begrudge others the better deal that they are now getting?

Though I'm certainly not the religious sort, I'm reminded of the Christian parable of the workers in the vineyard. You made your own deal with VMware, and you were happy with it. What business is it of yours if, since then, they have changed their plans and now offer better deals to others?

Re:What about existing customers?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would seem as thought that you have looked into it.. although it is easier to find esx then gsx ;)

Re:What about existing customers?

[paradizelost]

But you can just get the VMWare GSX trial, as it is fully functional, and use a keygen... COUGH COUGH

Re:What about existing customers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you download it off p2p? Download it directly from VMware and then use the serial generator.

Geesh hasn't anyone told you p2p is *illegal*.

</humor>

Re:What about existing customers?

[Anonymous Coward]

I called VMWare last week to inquire about GSX/ESX server and the sales guy told me that if I could hold off for a week then call back then as they would be making a big anouncement.

Re:What about existing customers?

[thoth]

The thing is, as the price rises, sellers often offer price protection. Think of all the consumer applicance stores, car dealerships, etc. that will give back the difference between what you paid and the current price, within a small time window.

I believe Apple computer does this as well, if you buy a computer a few days before a price drop, they'll refund you.

Re:What about existing customers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful?!? Who is moderating here?

If I think something is worth $1,400, I would still like to pay much less than what it's "worth"... Everybody wants to get a deal, noone wants to waste money. This situation touches on both ends -- I could have saved myself a large amount of money, and I missed out on a great deal.

And, your "Christian parable" is silly. If I negotiate a good compensation package, then find my co-workers doing the same job are getting much higher salaries or stock option packages, it's human nature to be pissed.

Re:What about existing customers?

[Forbman]

Yes, and then I think of all the other ones that offer little caveats in the small print on these so-called "price protections". The concept is sort of good in a retail environment, but if you went one day and filled your gas at $2.959/gal, and a couple of hours later, the price was down to $2.799/gal, do you think that if you go in with your receipt that the vendor is going to give you the difference back? Bah.

Some stores do it as a customer-friendly measure, but they leave themselves wiggle room, or have to have wiggle room in order to sell certain product lines, etc.

You pays your money, you takes your chances.

Re:What about existing customers?

[Ziviyr]

If you spend $1400 because you think you need to. It doesn't mean you're always happy about it. That is ALOT of money.

Re:What about existing customers?

[USS.Spock]

One thing you missed out is Tech Support! You get 1 yr unlimited Gold Support free with the product which you wouldn't get with the free version

Re:What about existing customers?

[chanman_01]

If you purchased GSX recently (after Dec. 1 2005) like I did, below is a link to the GSX Server Refund Program. The refund does not cover taxes, media kits or support subscription. You will need to complete the form and snail mail it with original receipts to the address listed on the form. http://www.vmware.com/pdf/gsx_refund.pdf

Limitations?

[Comatose51]

This is not a troll comment but can it run on a cluster? Will it detect that it's running on a Linux cluster and refuse to run? Here's what I'm thinking, a bunch of older computers clustered using one of those Live CDs that make them part a cluster just by popping the CDs in. I believe the software, can't remember the name, also does single system image or something like that where the cluster appears as a single system to the applications. Then run VMWare on top and run any OS you want! In my scenario, I'll be running Windows because our software is written for Windows but takes forever to run. I've considered building a cluster but couldn't think of an easy way to make it run on Linux. I was going to try Xen but VMWare is super easy to use, if my experience using it on Windows carries over to Linux.

Very exciting indeed.

Re:Limitations?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will it detect that it's running on a Linux cluster and refuse to run? Here's what I'm thinking, a bunch of older computers clustered using one of those Live CDs that make them part a cluster just by popping the CDs in.

I've never heard of that and I doubt it would work well. Just buy a nice big Linux box and host your virtual machines on that. I easily had 15 virtual lightly-loaded Windows 2000 servers on a single dual AMD Athlon MP 2800+ system with 4 gigs of RAM running GSX server. We use it in a lab environment for testing interoperability and new beta stuff.

Re:Limitations?

[__aajwxe560]

"VMware GSX Server makes high availability affordable and scalable by protecting critical applications and data in up to 64 secure, isolated virtual machines on a single hardware system. It supports standard network load balancing, standby, replication, and clustering of virtual machines." The new ESX v3 on its way out the door supports iSCSI clustering. I am not sure at what level you would want to run your cluster data at. VMWare stores a disk as a file, and I am not aware of a way to have multiple virtual machines accessing that file at the same time and writing to it. However, if, within your virtual machine, you have your cluster pointing to the shared data on an NFS or shared volume somewhere on the network, I don't see that being a problem.

Re:Limitations?

[hal2814]

I'm not so sure that shoehorning an app (and an OS for that matter) that thinks it's running on a signle node into a cluster is such a good idea. The benefits of a cluster are typically only realized when the underlying software has some idea of what's going on and can organize data sufficiently accross the nodes. At best case, I'm guessing there will be an awfully chatty system in place that may get marginally better performance or may even get worse performance than running the app on a single node.

Re:Limitations?

[PowerKe]

VMWare stores a disk as a file, and I am not aware of a way to have multiple virtual machines accessing that file at the same time and writing to it.

You can share a virtual disk, see Enabling SCSI Reservation for more information

Re:Limitations?

[stikves]

"This is not a troll comment but can it run on a cluster?"

No it's not troll, but it's totally uniformed. Currently SMP (multiprocessor/multithreaded) VMware is only supported on ESX server as an addon. As ESX runs on bare hardware (it's GSX who runs as a Linux application), there is currently no support for "virtual multiple CPUs in Linux". (Xen does this, but it's not the issue now).

Additionally OpenMOSIX (which comes with ClusterKnoppix - I guess you meant this by "those Live CDs"), does not to "SMP like" processing. Instead it combines the processes in a "global system view" state. (Too much technical details here, but a multiple threads are not migrated -- see HOWTO).

Moreover, it would be slow because of obvious issues -- as in network based access to disk and shared memory!

Finally multiple GSX servers managed from a single point is already possible with VMWare virtual center (google this yourselves is left for an exercise).

Sorry, but your suggestion will not work (at least under current circumstances).

Re:Limitations?

[M1FCJ]

Unfortunately OpenMosix (my favourite clustering kernel btw) is still stuck on Kernel 2.4. 2.6 is still on beta and userland tools don't exist yet. 2.6 has been around for ages so that's a shame.

Re:Limitations?

[Comatose51]

So for what I want to do, is Xen still the best way to go? I'm really uninformed about all this and want to experiment in the future. Thanks.

Re:Limitations?

[stikves]

If I'm not mistaken you're trying to "combine the strengths of several old machines to run a SINGLE software".

If so, please do not try to do this in a "generic" way. Even if somehow you achive to do it, the effect will be opposite of what you want. There is a big bottleneck in PC networking, unless you're using some specific fabric (say from Sun).

Instead, try to rewrite you application to be "cluster aware". Windows has (in production?) a new version called "Compute Cluster Edition" which comes with MPI and necessary management tools.

If you do not have access to the source code, bad luck then. Either use Free Software next time, or buy yourself a "powerful" single machine.

If I'm mistaken and you're trying to make a "POOL" for virtual machines, then Xen would be a good solution (for it's price). However as you've said VMware is solid but Xen is "in infant stages". You'll have to write many (probably in Python) scripts to do your job.

Re:Limitations?

[BestNicksRTaken]

"...there is currently no support for virtual multiple CPUs in Linux".

actually virtual-smp has been in workstation 5.5.0, insofaras if you have a smp host (like hyperthreading, dual core, or dual processor) you can have 2 (or 1) processors in your guest, in workstation i think it's limited to two processors.

according to the register, this new server product will feature virtual-smp support too, even though gsx currently doesn't. i wonder how many cpu's, hopefully 4-8 (think gsx does that, and esx does up to 16).

Re:Limitations?

[Anonymous Coward]

Workstation 5.5 supports virtual SMP. It certainly seems likely that this new GSX 4 (err, I mean VMware FreeServer) will as well.

Re:Limitations?

[__aajwxe560]

You learn something new everyday. Thank you. :)

Strange thing to say ...

[cablepokerface]

in the hope that customers who try it will eventually migrate to the more powerful ESX server

It's not only more powerful, it's fundamentally different. It's requires a different sort of administration. Also, the usage is different. gsx wil rarely be actively used in high uptime required production environments, esx will. esx also enables functionalities such als vmotion (if you have a san that is) and will be used more often in blade server configs.

I really wonder if people will view esx as an 'upgrade' to gsx.

Why Not Use Patents?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

To play devils advocate here, why isn't VMWare resorting to patents to muscle out the competition? Why compete when a government monopoly can take care of competition for you?

Are all their patents pending?

Re:Why Not Use Patents?

[fireboy1919]

Yeah...I'm sure that'd work out for them. Keep in mind that it is obvious that they didn't invent the idea of a virtual machine (it was one of the very first ways of doing things).
What they have to fear is the new hardware based virtualizers.

What would the title be?

"PATENT FOR USING AN ARCHITECTURE THAT WE DIDN'T WRITE IN A WAY THAT IT WAS INTENDED TO BE USED" comes to mind.

You don't think that'd fly, do you?
You don't think that perhaps that AMD and Intel might have problems with that?

I guess they could brag about the clever things they did to make an all hardware based virtualizer. That doesn't really help, though, does it? After all, Xen (and whatever else comes along) don't handle those cases anyway; it's not where they are competing.

Re:Why Not Use Patents?

[Dr. Evil]

VMWare is not in a good position to use patents to protect their IP.

The reason being that they actually have a product. This means they can be countersued for things like using a drop down menu, displaying a rectangle on a screen, ingenious stuff like that.

Re:Why Not Use Patents?

[Monoman]

To play devils advocate here, why isn't VMWare resorting to patents to muscle out the competition?

Because IBM probably has all the patents via their VM system that has been around for 30 years ;-)

Re:Why Not Use Patents?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Prior Art doesn't seem to stop the Patent Office from granting patents anymore.

Why no free VMware Workstation?

[Mark Gillespie]

Seems that GSX Server does everything VMWare Workstation does, so why would anyone buy VMware Workstation, when GSX Server is free? Don't quite understand that bit...

Re:Why no free VMware Workstation?

[Real_Handy]

Because GSX won't run on all of those XP machines? Server only (win2x and linux afaik).

Re:Why no free VMware Workstation?

[JeffTL]

It'll definitely run on Linux -- so if you can cope with a quick reboot to get at your virtualization software, VMware GSX can certainly run on an XP box.

Re:Why no free VMware Workstation?

[orion41us]

the Workstation is a application, you need the ui running for the virtual system to be up... GSX on the other hand runs the systems as services, and gives you a neat littile control panel.

Re:Why no free VMware Workstation?

[JustASlashDotGuy]

Workstation is probably more widely used the GSX server. They are
different Animals. Even tho GSX server may end up being free, we may
install it to a single production server. However, we will also
continue buying Workstation for testing. There are several people with
Workstation installed to the laptops so they can create/run various
VM's. On my laptop alone, I hav about 8 VM's that I use for testing
(various OS, VPN softwares, script design, etc). I would never install
GSX to my laptop.

Re:Why no free VMware Workstation?

[birder]

GSX runs on Windows XP although I won't say it's perfect. I never got it to use the networking properly for multiple NICs and it had a few quirks but it did run.

Re:Why no free VMware Workstation?

[j-cloth]

I'm currently running GSX on XP.

Re:Why no free VMware Workstation?

[Anonymous Coward]

> I would never install GSX to my laptop.

why?

what is the difference between GSX and workstation?

i've tried to figure this out before, but penetrating the marketing speak on vmware's homepage is darn near impossible

Re:Why no free VMware Workstation?

[Professor_UNIX]

GSX on the other hand runs the systems as services, and gives you a neat littile control panel.

GSX also includes a vmware-console application that you use to connect to the GSX server to view your consoles. So yes, you technically could replace VMWare workstation on a Linux box with GSX server and probably be fine.

Re:Why no free VMware Workstation?

[paradizelost]

Workstation provides for multiple snapshots that you can switch between, GSX only allows for 1 snapshot. you can take a snapshot, then revert to that snapshot, undoing everything you've just done. w/ workstatino, you can have 30 snapshots( at time's i've been almost to that point) and switch between them as you please.

Re:Why no free VMware Workstation?

[Mark Gillespie]

How about creating images with GSX Server and then using VMWare Player to use the images? Does VMware player provide any snapshot swithing capabilities?

Re:Why no free VMware Workstation?

[paradizelost]

No it doesn't.

Re:Why no free VMware Workstation?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

It only allows one snapshot, but can't you copy that snapshot to another directory? Make another snapshot and it will overwrite, but your saved snapshot is there is you want to bring it back. Sounds like a simple bash script to cp to backup, and mv from backup (and maybe list the various snapshots in backup) would give you the same functionality.

Re:Why no free VMware Workstation?

[kma]

Recent versions of Workstation are more than a GSX subset. They include features that are targeted specifically at developers and desktop users, that tend to be less useful for servers. E.g., workstation offers "teams" of associated VMs that power on together, and share a virtual private network connection, for software developers. It has a richer set of lightweight-cloning operations, which makes it more tractable to deploy applications inside VMs. And so on...

Not claiming we're always going to sell workstation forever and ever, just saying it's not necessarily an absurdity to go on charging for it. Not speaking for my employer, etc.

Re:Why no free VMware Workstation?

[paradizelost]

Yah, you could do that, but it's a major pain in the ass.

Re:Why no free VMware Workstation?

[dibbs_online]

VMWare workstation is a better product currently, GSX is a bit old in the tooth, development seems to happen on the workstation level.

ESX 3 is going to be where it is at, if you are big business the cost is really irrelivant and made up easily from hardware and thus datacenter savings. Tell me a better way to do full disaster recovery on Microsoft Exchange (I don't like it as much as you) than to use VMotion between sites.

And consider you will be buying some big EMC storage gear to VMotion between I'm sure EMC can give GSX away as it is about as useful as workstation in the big picture.

Wait a second....

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't TFA say they are "expected" to make their product free?

expected != will

Re:Wait a second....

[gurutc]

I'm sure that at the very least it will be virtually free...

Re:Wait a second....

[puke76]

Indeed. The Register published an interview with the VMWare CEO that is worth a read. It's been expected for a while and she was clearly open to the idea.

gsx is big brother of vmware workstation?

[leuk_he]

If (big if) gsx server is made available royaltee free is it possible to create images that can be played back by the free vmplayer? Does it not make vmware professional (desktop) obsolete?

Sublime server names

[digitaldc]

VMWare is going to give away its GSX server product for free, in the hope that customers who try it will eventually migrate to the more powerful ESX server...Intel Virtualization Technology--code-named Vanderpool and now emerging in server processors--accelerates some operations and makes it possible to run Windows on Xen without modifications to Windows that otherwise would be necessary.

I'm interested how the Intel Virtualization Technology will run on the up and coming SEX server.

Speculation

[Simon (S2)]

This is all news.com.com.com.com speculation. In TFA they state: "VMware may gain two advantages from the move..." blablabla "VMware didn't immediately respond to requests for comment."
So the title "VMware to Make Server Product Free (as in beer)" is misleading at best.

Re:Speculation

[NetJunkie]

It's not speculation. I've heard it from VMware people this week.

Re:Speculation

[Simon (S2)]

It's not speculation. I've heard it from VMware people this week.

lol :)

Kinda Worries Me

[timeOday]

This sounds to me like VMWare is under a lot of pressure. I'd hate to see them go away, because we use VMWare Workstation for some pretty important stuff, and the license cost isn't that bad in the grand scheme of things anyways.

Re:Kinda Worries Me

[SeanLee]

VMware is not going away.

--
All your x86 are belong to us.

I was 5 days from buying a copy

[McGruff]

I was literally 5 days away from buying a license to host a number of customer servers. This is a great product and closed source or not, I highly recommend it. The $2000 I was going to spend on it can now go to expanding the RAID array a bit. Now, how many terabytes fit into 2U? ;-P

      GXS really feels more robust than my experimentation with Xen 2.x and UML. It is still far and away better than MS Virtual Server, at least for the tasks I am planning on using it for. Unfortuanately for EMC and VMWare;
with Mircosoft to the left of you
and Open Source on the right,
Like Sun
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.

Apologies all around....

Re:I was 5 days from buying a copy

[drachenstern]

Now, how many terabytes fit into 2U? ;-P

um, two? no seriously, not that many, why not just purchase an external hd cage, one of those 4u buggers and have loads more room for drives?

Re:I was 5 days from buying a copy

[InsaneGeek]

I have systems that in 1u take 4x disks, so with 500gb drives you can have a nice round 4TB number using 2u, and I have a disk shelf that hold 15x 500gb disks making it 7.5TB in 3U.

Re:I was 5 days from buying a copy

[ovz_kir]

If you need to run Linux on Linux, take a look at OpenVZ -- compared to VMware, it has *much* higher scalability and lower overhead. And it *is* stable.

Re:I was 5 days from buying a copy

[McGruff]

If I were only needing Open Source guests, I'd likely choose Xen simply because I am familiar with it. The closed source progenitor to OpenVZ, Virtuozzo is another interesting option but is a heavy budget buster but also has Windows support. I hate to say it but the flexiblity to run Windows is an unfurtunate requirement sometime.

Having said that, if GSX does go the way of free beer, I'll still pick up a support contract. I tend to spend more money on Open Source software than I do on closed and free beer or no EMC and VMWare Corp will still get a few pennies out of me.

Oh, and the current count is 2U seems to hold 1.9 TiB. Next server I'll have to do better.

Virtualiazation isn't going to be . . .

[base3]

. . . of much commercial value for long, given that the model of computing is headed for a TCPA/Palladium/Remote attestation/Client assurance/DRM lockdown. Emulating "trusted" computing would defeat the whole purpose of the "content" and computing industries' march towards that model. That, and they'll buy laws making even attempting such emulation punishable by just short of death.

Re:Virtualiazation isn't going to be . . .

[swb]

I'm guessing that for all those complicated reasons it won't really go anywhere.

How about a version to run under OS X?

[jocknerd]

I'm waiting for that.

Re:How about a version to run under OS X?

[BestNicksRTaken]

Well as the development versions of Mac OS X86 have already been made to run under VMWare Workstation 5, it seems like your best bet would be to run Linux and have Windows+Mac as virtual machines, you get all the operating systems without the need to buy overpriced Mac hardware.

Re:How about a version to run under OS X?

[Anonymous Coward]

High quality for a high price != overpriced.

And (unfortunately for us but probably good for the future of the Mac platform), it's extremely unlikely that you'll be able to install OS X on VMWare, with the use of TPM. Going the other way shouldn't be a problem, though.

Continued Devlopment?

[nurb432]

I live and die by GSX, does this mean they will stop development of new versions, Leaving just Workstaion ( wont do the job for me ) and ESX ( too expensive to justify )?

Re:Continued Devlopment?

[Anonymous Coward]

I live and die by GSX, does this mean they will stop development of new versions, Leaving just Workstaion ( wont do the job for me ) and ESX ( too expensive to justify )?

No, ESX server is a LOT nicer and more stable than GSX, but it's tailored for specific hardware requirements and higher end customers with SANs. For example, if you have a bunch of ESX servers on a SAN and use VirtualCenter's VMotion feature you can move the running machine between ESX servers (perhaps you want to take an ESX server down to upgrade it or for maintenance) without pausing it or shutting it down. That's a really nice feature in our production environment.

Related Stories?

[gmf]

What is it with this "Related Stories" thing? Is that new, or why did I never notice it before?

And most importantly: Will it also list the dupes? :)

Mac already runs Win

[Anonymous Coward]

MS sells the VM/Win2000 and VM/WinXP packages for Mac Tiger for the same price as the bare Intel packages.

Psssssst. If you promise not to tell anyone, MS Office Win runs better on a Mac under VM than does the native MS Office Mac. Same with the multifarious versions of the professional QuickBooks packages.

Re:Mac already runs Win

[generic-man]

How much memory do you have? I tried running Windows XP in VPC6 on a 1.33 GHz PowerBook G4 with 768 MB RAM, and it was so slow you could watch individual elements of dialog boxes repaint. I didn't even try to install Microsoft Office with that level of responsiveness.

Not GSX

[Anonymous Coward]

The free product will be called VMware Server, not GSX. I am not sure if they will continue with GSX as a separate product, but I was under the impression that they will. I had initially heard about this here.

XP Compatible host

[nurb432]

Runs fine on XP and 2000 pro.

However, id do think the workstation edition will start getting things more useful as a 'desktop', such as accelerated graphics. While the server editions wont ever have that.. Different market.

You can make your own VMs for VMware player

[soboroff]

"The company recently released a free VMWare Player which could only run but not create virtual machines."

Sure you can. Take a gander at http://www.hackaday.com/entry/1234000153064739/

What you don't get with VMware player is the nifty GUI to help you with the setup.

Re:You can make your own VMs for VMware player

[pl1ght]

Indeed. The little QEMU configuration "hack""workaround" was really interesting. Just for kicks we were making Linux and Windows VMs with it and then passing of the files to other users that had the vmplayer with no problems. Amazing how minimal the work was to get vmplayer to install onto an qemu created virtual drive.

Re:You can make your own VMs for VMware player

[Anonymous Coward]

"The company recently released a free VMWare Player which could only run but not create virtual machines."

Sure you can. Take a gander at http://www.hackaday.com/entry/1234000153064739/

What you don't get with VMware player is the nifty GUI to help you with the setup.

What you said doesn't invalidate the bit you quoted. The original quote didn't say you weren't able to create your own virtual machines; it said that the VMware Player isn't capable of doing it, which is indeed true.

MOD DOWN... not informative, it's incorrect

[LurkerXXX]

VMWare since at least 4.0, has only let you change the MAC address to a limited subset of possible addresses. You can't change it to anything you want to.

Because what I want...

[hummassa]

is the other way around (windows inside linux -- and no, Wine is not always an option)

What excellent timing.

[EvilNight]

We're moving some of our development and most of our testing into VMs for the flexibility. We gave Microsoft Virtual PC a spin, but compared to VMWare it's pretty lacking in features, so we ended up going with VMWare Workstation. The advanced networking features, broad platform support, and snapshotting capability are huge wins for us. We had been planning to use Microsoft's Virtual PC Server product for collaborative development efforts because we get licenses with our MSDN subscriptions, whereas GSX was really damn pricey. Now, thanks to this rather canny offer of free GSX server, we won't even need to do that. This is most excellent.

IV Tech mixed with SEX?

[drachenstern]

could potentially go on forever, eh? (apparently i'm just burning karma)

You're right

[birder]

I've always only changed the last two digits but you're right. You can only modify the the last 3 digits in recent releases. They did it to ensure no conflicts in the network.

Reference:

Remove the three lines that begin with the following:
ethernet[n].generatedAddress
ethernet[n].addressType
ethernet[n].generatedAddressOffset
In these options, [n] is the number of the virtual Ethernet adapter -- for example ethernet0.

Add the following line to the configuration file :
ethernet0.address = 00:50:56:XX:YY:ZZ

In this line, XX must be a valid hexadecimal number between 00h and 3Fh, and YY and ZZ must be valid hexadecimal numbers between 00h and FFh.

Virtual PC

[addie macgruer]

That would be strange. My iBook 800 G4 / 768 Mb runs the like of XP / Office entirely tolerably using virtual PC. It's sufficiently fast to get a USB wi-fi thing with "XP only" drivers running and shifting a couple of hundred K per second, and to have some retro UFO: Enemy Unknown running along in XP's DOS emulation mode.

I've found the best way to get some extra speed on the go is to set the 'guest' OS to a good whack of RAM, like 700 mb, and to switch off virtual memory in XP. XP handling paging really does slow it down.

My major complaint about VPC6 is that it gets the computer too hot to keep on your lap in minutes, and causes the battery remaining to drop from about 4 hours to 30 minutes.

vm builder

[switchfutguy]

who needs the full version if you have the player? The vmbuilder works great for me. all you need is an iso in the same directory as the vmx file. open notepad copy your code in save it as ".vmx" and you are good to go.

The good news is:

[hummassa]

Treacherous computing will not fly. Oh, they'll try, but it won't work.

all thigns virtual

[augur_seer]

this is kool, good to see everyone wants to release something free, jsut keep the extra fancy stuff locked up and you can get "some" buissniess.

Going to ....

[DrSkwid]

I'm going to the moon.

Confused...

[afabbro]

So would the Workstation also be free? My mental picture of the VMWare products was:

• Workstation - can only administer it locally, limit on size of box, no VMotion, etc.
• GSX - can administer it remotely, limit on size of box, no VMotion, etc.
• ESX - everything

Re:Confused...

[shawn_f]

Workstations and GSX are host based virtualization, where as ESX is a bare metal install, with OS's installed on top of that. All of their fancy software is only available on ESX, for the most part...I think they should give ESX away...man would that be super cool...

This would be great

[blueZ3]

Now that Macs are on Intel, it seems fully possible to install one as a virtual machine... if Mac OS is installable on "generic" x86 hardware. The virtualization layer fully emulates the x86 architecture, so it seems pretty doable.

The issues would be 1) Will Mac OS be supported on non-"trusted" hardware? and 2) Is there money in it? It seems only fair that someone else should offer a VirtualPC software to compete with Microsoft's Mac OS VPC product.

I am going to try and start an internal campaign to stir this idea up at my employer... a vm company of whose name you are aware. :-)

Are there any VM options for Intel Macs?

[schmidt4brains]

I'm keen to find out if there are any x86 VM solutions for the new Intel-based Macs. Microsoft has made no comment about Virtual PC for Mac (which you would think might be the easier than emulating an x86 on a PowerPC). I think VMWare has always focuses on x86 Linux and Windows. So is there anything out there for the new Intel Macs?

Re:Are there any VM options for Intel Macs?

[paulhar]

Sure - just reboot / reinstall Linux / Windows on your Intel PC and you're able to run VMware just fine.

Re:Are there any VM options for Intel Macs?

[chivo243]

My collegue(mac guru) has named half a dozen in the past week, VPC will run native, iEmulator, guestpc just to name the three I can remember... WINE I believe he mentioned as running native as well.... I was hung over... the whole week is a blurr.... virtually?

Re:Great! But..

[Demerol]

Products like netscape die because they suck.

Re:WTF

[rmpotter]

Exactly A/C. And someone always has to pay for the hardware, bandwidth, electricity, food, clothing, lodging, healthcare and education required for the production of "free" (and not free) software.

Re:WTF

[bill_kress]

Free speech--concepts can be taken from person to person, reworked and made your own. Once you have heard something, you can repeat it a million times to a million different people with whatever subtle difference you choose to add, or keep it up to date with new concepts.

Free Beer--You pretty much just rent beer anyway. They can stop serving it at any time and you are screwed (espically if you have become addicted). If it doesn't meet your needs in some small way, you're screwed.

Free Beer is probably not a good foundation for your business, they are only giving it to you to get you to buy better beer anyway, but it's certianly much better than paying if you're broke.

If you're flush--you might as well pay for it (tip) anyway to get the (bartenders) support.

evaporating market

[idlake]

VMware's market is evaporating. Their value was virtualization of a difficult-to-virtualize architecture, the Pentium. Now that Pentium is getting hardware virtualization, virtualization is simple and it will just become a standard part of Linux, Windows, and OS X.

Re:evaporating market

[SeanLee]

Right.
By the way, 1998 called. They want their analysts back.

Re:evaporating market

[toadlife]

We're moving to a Blade Center/SAN/Vmaware ESX solution in a couple of months.

Guess we didn't get the memo?

Re:evaporating market

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Xen is about to eat VMware's lunch on the Linux side and Microsoft is putting a hypervisor into Windows. Where does this put VMware? In deep s*$t. My company was evaluating VMware until one of their reps paid us a visit to discuss the brass tax. When we came to the point of price (~$3500 for EACH ESX Server, you've got to be kidding me...), he wouldn't budge. He offered to thrown in some service contract, but basically indirectly stated, we own the market and we'll charge as much as we can. My boss left the room and wanted "that a**hole" out of the building. That was about 4 months ago. Looks like their feeling the pressure and won't be able to anally probe their customers much longer.

EMC^2 owns Vmware, so...

[shawn_f]

What do you think EMC's role is in this? They could easily afford to give the product away, and sell services. VMWare isn't going anywhere; on the contrary, this could be decision from the higher ups at EMC to start gathering and holding on to market share, much like EMC has been doing with their storage for the last 2 or so years...what ever it takes, I am sure they will do it.

VMware is not competing

[mnmn]

VMware is not really competing with those other technologies. Its only looking at its impending doom at the hands of hypervisor technologies. Think about it, will you really need vmware when you have hypervisor... no vmware tools install, no slow machines, no lack of peripherals, full speed (almost)? For that reason alone I think I'll buy the first athlon64 with pacifica later this year. Hope they release a 754-pin version too.

Why I switched from VMWare to Qemu

[this great guy]

I use virtualization a lot, both at work and for for personal needs. I have got about 20 disk images, and my work typically requires me to run 2 or 3 virtual machines concurrently. Three or 4 years ago, I was using VMWare because it was basically the only product that worked well at the time. However I have switched to Qemu since then, because IMHO it is technically superior. Here is why:

• Qemu copy-on-write disk image formats allows me to have as many different disk images of the same OS while using MUCH LESS disk space than VMWare. For example at work, I have N images of Windows XP, each configured with a different set of applications, parameters, etc, and all of them can be run concurrently. For me the lack of this feature in VMWare is clearly a showstopper, if I had to use VMWare I would have to create litteraly N different images, and it would use N times the disk space of Qemu (!). I cannot understand why VMWare STILL doesn't offer you such a feature after so many years.
• Qemu copy-on-write disk image formats also allows me to create a new disk image instantly (less than 1 sec). The closest existing VMWare feature ("snapshot") is slow and not as convenient.
• Qemu offers the option of being run on a machine without an X server. This is useful because my servers running Qemu don't need to be bloated with X, they are also more secure (no exported X display, etc). It is also much faster to run, create and manage virtual machines using Qemu's command line tools than using VMWare's GUI. And graphical guest OSes are usually accessed over VNC-like protocols so the lack of X doesn't matter.
• Qemu, like VMWare, uses a kernel module to implement different techniques to speed up virtualization. However Qemu kernel module is smaller (less potential security vulns) and more stable (in my experience).
• Qemu offers you the possibility of NOT using this kernel module. It can be very useful when you need to fire it up on a random machine: you don't have the obtain its kernel headers and you don't need to compile a kernel module.
• Qemu offers a CLI tool to create, convert, commit (copy-on-write) disk images; the main Qemu binary is also a CLI tool; and the monitor device can also be redirected to standard input/output. The obvious advantage of this is that the whole Qemu suite is scriptable and flexible. I have written quite a few scripts to ease my life, you can control basically everything: start, shutdown, reboot, eject CD drives, save screenshots, pause/continue emulation, etc. I know that VMWare has recently introduced a Perl API, but I don't know if it is as complete as what you can do with Qemu.
• Qemu is open-source, relies on standard kernel components and is generally better engineered. For example it uses the existing tun/tap driver and lets the users use iptables, to create virtual network interfaces and do NAT/bridging, etc. While VMWare re-implements THEIR virtual interfaces, THEIR nat code and THEIR bridging code, unnecessarily adding potential bugs and complexity to the whole system. VMWare has to do this because they have to support other technically inferior host OSes (Windows has no tun/tap driver, its firewall is not as powerful as iptables, etc).

The only feature I would like to see implemented in Qemu is the one allowing you to make real USB devices available to guest OSes. But anyway VMWare has so many disadvantages (see above) that for me it's a clear no-go. I think people praising VMWare are maybe too close-minded and don't realize its disadvantages because they have no experience with other virtualization softwares...

Re:Why I switched from VMWare to Qemu

[man_of_mr_e]

I don't think you've taken a look at the new 5.x series or the GSX or ESX server, though granted ESX is outrageously expensive. I'm not that familiar with QEMU, but some of the things you mention don't apply to VMWare GSX or ESX server. For example, GSX and ESX server allow remote GUI's, so you don't need X11 on the host machine.

Additionally, VMWare has multi-processor support, as well as virtual SMP support, so you can simulate SMP on a single processor box (handy if you're debugging SMP problems but only have a single CPU system).

Also, there's a pretty extensive scripting API on both GSX and ESX server and has been for years. I can't speak for Linux API, but the COM api on Windows has been used for a long time.

About the only thing on your list that VMWare GSX server doesn't have is your "copy on write" but for the performance advantages of VMWare, i'd deal with it.

Re:Why I switched from VMWare to Qemu

[drinkypoo]

Does qemu offer virtualization now? Last time I looked at it, there was a lot of talk about using bochs as an engine for qemu, and someone claimed to have done it, but you couldn't GET it. Last I checked, qemu was only an emulator.

Re:Why I switched from VMWare to Qemu

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Qemu DOES offer virtualization. It's the purpose of its associated kernel module.

Re:Why I switched from VMWare to Qemu

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, GSX and ESX server allow remote GUI's, so you don't need X11 on the host machine.

But you still need X11 on the machine on which the GUI is run... So for example you cannot start a VM from a remote location throught SSH. You could forward your X session, but then here comes the pb of latency, slowness, etc. The point of the OP was exactly that: Qemu is more flexible because you can run it without X11 at all !

About the only thing on your list that VMWare GSX server doesn't have is your "copy on write" but for the performance advantages of VMWare, i'd deal with it.

No, look at his list again, VMWare is lacking in many areas: X11 required, kernel module required, not open-source, non-standard NAT/bridging, etc. Plus I would add VMWare has no performance advantages over Qemu. Both apps offer similar level of perf because both implement virtualization. Plus Qemu is totally free, as in beer and as in freedom. When looking at the big picture, VMWare has only 2 advantages: SMP support, and USB devices sharing; while Qemu wins at everything else.

Re:Why I switched from VMWare to Qemu

[man_of_mr_e]

But you still need X11 on the machine on which the GUI is run... So for example you cannot start a VM from a remote location throught SSH.

Not true at all. GSX and ESX server are managed by a web interface. You start and stop VM's (and create them, etc..) via a web browser.

As for your other comments, I don't agree about the custom virtual NIC adapters. They work pretty well in my experience. There are multiple modes that allow it's use in different scenarios. One of those scenarios is host-only networking (creating a network between virtual hosts only, something that QEMU is only now starting to support).

VMWare performance is pretty damn good, if you've used a recent version. It used to suck, but i notice no real performance differences, other than video related ones. Also, VMWare supports 64 bit virtualziation as well, not sure if QEMU does.

Re:Why I switched from VMWare to Qemu

[drinkypoo]

That's nice but I'd like to know about other platforms too, like Windows.

Even better, I'd like to not need kernel integration to use virtualization. Plex86 manages to virtualize without kernel integration.

Re:Why I switched from VMWare to Qemu

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true at all. GSX and ESX server are managed by a web interface.

...and your browser is a graphical app, so you still need an client machine running X11 (I doubt the VMWare management interface is usable in text-mode browsers). That's precisely my point. The fact that Qemu offers CLI tools is more flexible.

Regarding SMP support, it has recently appeared in Qemu (but only for x86 guest machines). I have never tested it but hopefully, it will become very stable in the near future (if it's not already the case).

Regarding the AMD64 arch, Qemu supports it. Qemu also emulates ARM, Sparc, PowerPC, MIPS, etc; and it can also be run on PowerPC. VMWare does none of that.

Re:WTF

[civilizedINTENSITY]

What the fuck does "free as in beer" mean?

It used to be that on election day the political machines would send men out to all the bars to buy everyone beer to toast their candidate. The idea was that the free beer would lead them to vote for the guy. Since there is an implied obligation to vote their way, the beer wasn't really free. This is then contrasted (in the "free as in beer or free as in speech") to freedom of speech, which is obviously a different sort of "free". Likewise, "Live Free or Die" doesn't imply life without cost, but rather the cost of living free.

vmware for dummies

[Anonymous Coward]

So let's say hypothetically that I, a self-respecting geek (who'd like to remain so, and hence will post this as anonymous coward) has never had much reason to look into virtual machines before. Now, with this announcement, and the IE 7 Beta not easily being able to co-exist with IE 6 (which I need to remain usable for testing), my curiosity is peaked, and I think I would like to run one of these virtual machines thingumies to be able to safely run IE 7.
So I go to this vmware website, and I look around, and I am utterly and painfully confused by all the incomprehensible jargon, marketing-speak and general assumptions that I'd know what I want.

Could some kind /. soul please help me out and explain to me in a few simple steps what I'd need to download, and what things I'd need to do, to get a virtual machine with windows xp and IE 7 running?

A link to some article covering the same would also suffice. I tried to google, but the search terms I used are apparently too general to find much of anything useful.

Multiple users with own kbd & monitor

[101deletions]

Can I set this up so that I have, say a win98 session running under XP, using a different usb keyboard and mouse and monitor, so that 2 people can use the same computer? That'd be cool.

Re:Multiple users with own kbd & monitor

[Sleepy]

>Can I set this up so that I have, say a win98 session running under XP, using a different usb keyboard and mouse and monitor, so that 2 people can use the same computer? That'd be cool.

No.

VMWare makes your secondary OS just a program.
So, how do you run Windows and assign one monitor & keyboard to one user while another person uses the same desktop?

multiple-login Remote Desktop (Citrix?) maybe?

You could do this on Linux using X11, and a network login from another PC. You might also be able to assign in Linux keyboards & mice to displays, but I don't know for a fact this is true.

Screw 'em

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't make it work with FreeBSD as host when they wanted money for the product.

I've moved to Xen and will stay there.

mod parent funny, not troll!

[Anonymous Coward]

how was that troll?

Re:mod parent funny, not troll!

[Merle Darling]

See above. Sometimes I think we should just scrap the moderation system, pin the comments to a wall and throw moderation darts at them while blindfolded.

I thought ESX was a pain in the ass

[swb]

I looked at both GSX and ESX about a year ago to consolidate some pesky systems (all Windows) with aging hardware that needed unique environments. I thought ESX was a big pain. More complicated to manage (half web, half CLI), annoying disk allocation, and I could get it to bomb on a FreeBSD VM.

GSX was easier to manage in terms of the UI, and it was a lot easier to deal with VMDKs as well. Even performance wise I wasn't able to see much if any improvement with ESX vs. GSX on Win2k03.

Anyway, I think GSX is underrated, both in terms of stability and in terms of performance. VMotion of course changes the sitaution, but that's really is a horse of a different breed (and it's expensive, too).

Finally someone who agrees about GSX vs ESX

[swb]

I think there's two kinds of VMware deployments. There's "utility" deployments to consolidate pesky environments or legacy systems (like BES, OWA front-ends, etc) where flexibility and ease of use matters, and then there's "enterprise" deployments where people actually run Exchange or SQL.

The former benefit more from GSX due to the much easier (at least in Windows) ability to work with GSX user interface and the simpler host operating environment. Grow-based VMDKs make much more sense and allow you a lot more breathing room for adding more VMs.

The "enterprise" VMWare deployments are less about consoldation since there are few x86 platforms that support enough CPU to meaningfully consolidate a high-usage Exchange, SQL or other system on the same box, and I think once those deployments don't change over time as much as GSX ones might. They're planned and deployed and then they're done.

In terms of business strategy, I think VMWare needs to merge workstation and GSX into a single product (which basically amounts to updating GSX with Workstation's new features and making it capable of running as a service as GSX does now), but price it at workstation prices.

ESX needs to come down in price and the high-buck costs needs to be in VMotion, since it presumes multiple deployments on a lot of hardware.

AMD's rival technology, code-named Pacifica

[Shanep]

AMD's rival technology, code-named Pacifica

I thought Pacifica was a complimentary technology for virtualization like VMware?

Flatlined technology with a DNR

[Anonymous Coward]

While products like GSX and Virtual Server are useful, they are essentially a dead end technology. The next Windows server platform will incorporate virtual server technology similar to Virtuozzo. Virtualization is going to move into the hardware layer and products that provide a virtual hardware layer ontop of a software layer ontop of a software layer ontop of a hardware layer are only feasible in testing and development, but neither Microsoft or VMware are interested in that market. Both are competing for the high capacity and high performance virtualization sector.

DNR = Do Not Resuscitate

Re:WTF

[CounterZer0]

Talk about making some history up to suit the present.
Free as in beer means it's something that has no dollar figure price tag, ie. it costs nothing.
Free as in speech, means it's a 'freedom' or a right, not something you can attach a dollar figure to.