Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Virtualization Led Microsoft to Support Linux

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the tangled-web dept.

Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "Why did Microsoft make the surprise announcement that it would support business customers who also use Linux? Because of the increasing importance of virtualization, Lee Gomes writes in the Wall Street Journal. 'Once businesses start using virtualization to cut back on the number of machines they need to buy, "a light bulb goes on over their head," says Tony Iams, who follows the field for Ideas International, an analyst group,' Gomes writes. 'Other uses become apparent, such as backing up data or easily adding processor power to a particular application as the need arises.' VMware pioneered the market, but now Microsoft is 'expected to offer sophisticated virtualization products in the next year or two,' Gomes writes. 'The company currently has a fairly rudimentary product, which was involved in its big Linux announcement earlier this month.'"

12 of 99 comments (clear)

  1. Not doing it will Hurt MS. by jellomizer · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If you support virtualization and not allow Linux in the picture, then somone else will make a system that virtualizes Linux and Windows. Simple as that.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  2. Beware of Geeks bearing gifts! by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Microsoft is 'expected to offer sophisticated virtualization products in the next year or two,' Does Microsoft's definition of "sophisticated" include inducing random data corruption in any non-Microsoft OS? I think I'd be more a lot more comfortable getting my virtualization products from somebody that lets me look at the source code.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Beware of Geeks bearing gifts! by VGR · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think that deserves to be labeled flamebait.

      This is something Microsoft has already done with other products they could not otherwise embrace, extend and extinguish: They simply make it look bad.

      Like distributing Java 1.1 for years. Or having pages return degraded content for Opera browsers.

      I don't know that they'll introduce actual data corruption, but I can certainly envision the VM doing a number of things very slowly, particularly if it's running Linux or emulating functionality that Linux is known to frequently rely on. It may not even be deliberately hobbled functionality, but rather "lax support" for some key functionality.

      --
      The Internet is full. Go away.
  3. Microsoft != stupid by CogDissident · · Score: 5, Insightful
    They know that open source can be good for them sometimes. While many of you might be huge linux advocates, the fact remains that many of the bigger companies still use windows server solutions. Its not so much that they support linux, is that now that its a viable solution, if they can blend themselves into linux, but still get you to pay for M$ products, then they come out ahead.

    The simple fact is that M$ wants to keep its name in the big buisnesses because 10,000 licenses a year is a big deal, plus those big boys of buisness also influence their workers to be familiar with windows, which leads their families to purchase windows, and so on and so on.

    1. Re:Microsoft != stupid by kebes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're absolutely correct. MS is doing this because they want to capture market share.

      The interesting thing (to me) is whether this is a "MS takes over yet another niche" phenomenon or whether this is a "MS desperately trying to slow loss of market share." If they don't support Linux at all, they will lose a certain number of people who decide to go fully Linux to suit their needs. By offering compatible virtualization, MS can also recapture this market. On the other hand, building in this compatibility will make some people experiment with Linux who might not have otherwise. Thus there is some number of customers that MS stands to lose (in the long term) because people become familiar with Linux.

      Apparently MS is betting that the number of people they gain will outweigh the number they lose. I think they are right, in the short term... but that in the long term virtualization in general (with MS's contribution being included in that) stands to help Linux more than it helps Windows. When any OS can run any other OS as a virtual system quickly and efficiently, then consumer choice is maximized. As more people become familiar with Linux, the idea of spending alot of money on MS Windows will cease to be attractive. An entire company might be able to get away with only paying for a few Windows licenses, since when they are needed they would be transparently transferred to the computer that needed it at that moment.

  4. Re:Like My Grandpappy Used To Say... by SCPRedMage · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You misspelled "buy them out"...

    --
    My sig can beat up your sig.
  5. VMWare "pioneered" the market???? by cdn-programmer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What about IBM? Seems VMWare is about 40 years late.

    1. Re:VMWare "pioneered" the market???? by multipartmixed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Big, expensive -- sure. How many cheap computers EXISTED 40 years ago? Answer: not many!

      As for slower. That's a question I'm not competent to answer, because I never had the opportunity run an IBM mainframe *without* VM.

      IPL CMS, baby!

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  6. OS sold with server is important by Enrique1218 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Microsoft wants to remain relevant with the OEMs. The way to keep that secure is to make sure that OEM will still offer Windows with their servers. Virtualization's emergence may redefine the importance of the operating system. It is spreading from high end server right down to the desktop. Microsoft will be keen to support competitors operating systems including Linux because Linux certianly will support Windows via VMWare/Xen. Otherwise, OEMs will begin bundling Linux over Windows with the knowlegde that it can always be install after market as a virtual OS. When that happens Microsoft loses clout with the OEMs which may trickle down to destops. Also, the other reason is to compete to be the host OS and not the virtual one because the customer may rely more on that OS than the virtual one and is more likely to invest more in it.

    --
    You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
  7. You will be able to tell they're ready.... by Churla · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You will be able to tell they're ready to make serious money on this when they offer a cut rate discounted license for "Windows 2003 server, virtual machine edition" On top of "Windows Virtual Server"

    This way, you get a VMware ESX style OS to handle virtual servers on the box which would presumably come with some set number of windows server licenses, and a per virtual server licensing option for windows running on virtualization options other than MS's own.

    Sell in option would be to do server consolidation for companies. The pitch? "Let us consolidate these 10 servers onto one box for you, you save the yearly maintenance costs on 9 servers, and we credit your account part of what those 2003 server licenses are costing on all of them to help subsidize the virtualization software with double that number of virtual windows servers licensed on it."

    The potential is here for it to be truly insidious.

    --
    I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
  8. Re:Like My Grandpappy Used To Say... by charlesnw · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You forgot: Paying all that money and watching your business die when Windows does. Priceless.

    --
    Charles Wyble System Engineer
  9. Re:Copycats by Software · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Well, Boot Camp is not virtualization; it's just dual-booting. VMWare is virtualization, of course.

    Somewhat OT: Check out Parallels, as mentioned in the New York Times (scroll halfway down). It's like VMWare for Macs.