Slashdot Mirror
VMware Releases Server 1.0
epit writes "VMware has released v1.0 of their VMware Server product for free (as in beer) as planned. Up until now, it had been a beta download. You can download your copy via the VMware website. Release notes are also available."
I've never used VMware but have heard lots of great things from many people. I always wondered what the business model was for VMWare. Who uses it? Why would they pay for it? Things like that.
Are there any legit home uses for VMware on a regular basis?
Slashdot.. where people join together in deliberate ignorance.
I wonder if there is any concidence between this and Virtual PC 04/07 being released free. Hrmm...
welcome our new virtualized overlords and their free gifts.
(Sorry, it had to be said.)
If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
With this, apparently I can create new machines, make snapshots and suspend machines to disk. Doesn't making this a free download make vmplayer redundant?
Check out Virtual Appliances. Basically, there are people who've already fully configured environments in a virtual machine so you can just pick up the free (as in beer) VMWare Player product and run them.
Why would you want to do that? I use a virtual machine to browse the Web - that way, my computer doesn't get bogged down by spyware (only the virtual machine does) and it's much more painless to simply purge a spyware-ridden virtual machine and start afresh than it is for your main computer.
I went to download server beta a few days ago to try it, and AFTER filling in my contact details I got the licence terms that said no commercial use under any circumstances. This was a shame since I wanted to run a couple of windows-ony apps under Linux on my work laptop to save dual-booting.
Have they changed those conditions? I still don't see terms before filling out the contact info, and don't feel like filling them in again only to feel cheated again.
Today I diched Windows from my laptop and was right in the process of installing Kubuntu. Unfortunately there are a few Windows apps I still need and that have postponed my use of Linux on the desktop for a long time although I've been using it on servers for quite a while. I keep hearing of those emulator/virtualizers/whatnots but can't really figure out what is the difference between them: VMware, Win4Lin, Crossover, Wine... Do you install Windows after or before Linux ? How do you install Windows apps ? Etc... Is there a comparision of them somewhere (I've searched in the past) ?
Non-Linux Penguins ?
With VMWare, you can have more than one overlord in the same body at the same time!
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
What seems to be missing is good reasons for using a VM at home. I can think of several:
1) Seems a lot easier than dual-booting (for those of us with SO's who aren't comfortable with Linux)
2) Makes a good home lab for what is rapidly becoming another standard tool of the IT trade
3) Hardware speeds are approaching the level where (except for gaming and certain compute-intensive applications) most home machines are quite powerful enough to run multiple partitions without the user even noticing a slowdown.
4) Shiney!
5) Free (as in beer)!
Feel free to add to this list - it's a long way from being complete.
Incidentally, I wonder if Windows Vista will run under VM? I'm guessing yes (as anything else would mean that Microsoft is cutting their own throat).
Right now it's in an experimental stage. Check out more info here: Experimental Support for Direct3D
I love this software, but the Linux client really is neglected. The documentation for Linux is not really there. There is no decent configuration tool for Linux. There are many bugs. For example, if you do any port forwarding, you must edit some nat.conf file. And if you reconfigure anything after that with vmware-config.pl, it completely wipes out all your changes to nat.conf without warning. I spent so much time dealing with these types of bugs while testing the beta, I should have simply purchased another solution.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
In case you haven't been following Xen, the reason why you cannot run Windows is because we are waiting for intel's VM processor instructions to be implemented in the next VT release of thier processors.
:-)
Well, that appearently is no longer a problem and you should be able to use a standard Linux Fedora Core, or whatever installation to load windows on by next year.
VMware knows this, and is trying to prevent existing customers from leaving or looking elsewhere by giving away its products.
Interesting thoughts I have was:
1) I can install Windows workstations and servers remotely.
2) How long will it take for Microsoft to add a Service Pack update that detects windows running on a Linux box and have it start not working properly so that people use thier VM product instead, or don't have a choice.
3) Whats the performance going to be like.
VMWare is a nice product but A it is too expensive, and be it is too expensive because it turns any VM machine into a basket case performance wise.
So XeN's approach hopefully won't be any worse, maybe better since they are not trying to emulate an entire machine.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
VMWare Server is a server so the VMs running on it are accessible from other machines by running a client tool. With Workstation and Player you can only access and use the VMs from the machine they are running on - no remote connectivity (unless you run a client connectivity tool like VNC fom within the VM). Workstation is more sophisticated (mutiple snapshot capablitities, VM Teams, etc) with the exception that the VMs cannot be accessed remotely.
See this page for more information and download links.
...and if you're still interested in the difference between Server/GSX and Workstation here are a few:
VM runs in the background, and you connect to it using a client. In workstation, you loaded up VMWare Workstation, ran your VM, shut down your VM, then closed workstation. With VMWare server you run the VMWare client and connect to the server running on localhost or another system and then manage it as you would in workstation. When you close the server client, the VM keeps running in the background. It is also more powerful as far as automation and creating of virtual machine groups.
In no event shall Licensee use the Beta Software for Licensee's product development or any other commercial purpose.
MS announced it today. Must be pure coincidence.t .mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/defaul
I've heard it doesn't totally suck anymore.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=95
Goddamnit, I just finished testing and upgraded my servers to Beta 3 yesterday.
I have to say though, as the IT manager in a medium sized business with a limited (whose isn't?) IT budget, VMware has made my life MUCH easier.
I can buy capable dual-core servers for $500, use VMware to host several platforms on each and have budget leftover for spare hardware. I can offer more services to users, because I don't need to purchase additional hardware or request a budget increase. Security is improved, because VMware lets me separate services which should not be running on the same platform. And reliability is improved and downtime is reduced. If hardware fails, I can restore the virtual machines from backups onto spare hardware already running VMware. With the static nature of most of my servers, logs and databases are on an NFS, I can usually restore full functionality within an hour.
And you know what the best part is? I don't have to sweet talk the CFO for more money when budget time comes around again. And strangely enough, the higher ups see the better bang for the buck and my budget is increasing.
First if you install Windows into a VM from a legit Windows XP CD and try to download any updates the Genuine Windows Advantage test fails. So MS already knows if you're running VMware. I think MS wants you to buy multiple copies of Windows if you're planning to run in a VM as well as on the real silicon.
Second, this is a licensing issue too, one thing I've used it for is for software I use too infrequently to purchase and has a trial period like 30 days or whatever. Create a VM, install XP in to it, and take a snapshot. Then install and run the software. You may, as I often do, only need to run it for a couple of hours and then not again for a couple of months. By then the trial period has expired. Simply restore the VM from the snapshot, re-install the trial software and you're good to go for another session. Unethical? Maybe. Flame away.
Lastly, despite the fact that I occasionally do #2, I mostly use VMware to run Fedora Core for development. I have Apache set up on it with all the bells and whistles and when I'm working on a website I use it as a test server. Runs quite well with 256 MB dedicated to it on my 1 GB main XP system.
Linux & UNIX based virtualization has always been far superior to that of Windows. Superior is probably an understatement though, more like exponentially better.
/
Just check into
OpenVZ http://openvz.org/
FreeBSD Jails http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBSD_Jail
Solaris zones http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zones/faq
Xen http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/SRG/netos/xen/
and the list goes on. So much better on *nix. Of course, I think that is somehow related to the fact you can run a *nix box via CLI, bare minimum of functionality, the likes of which it even the best Windows gurus cannot get close to (though Mark Russinovich and Bryce Cogswell do rox)
What is funny, is so many of us are ignorant of virtualization's roots in IBM mainframes. Big Blue was so far ahead of the times, it is like omg. BTW, I love Wikipedia. I've been preparing a presentation on virtualization the last few days, and Wikipedia makes it so easy!
We consolidated 180 physical servers onto 10 physical servers, each running 10-20 VM sessions of Windows 2000 and 2003 server (Linux being the host OS). Amazing performance, and its really easy to restore things. No more outages, down times, etc. It's also easy to put up a new server, should we need to. No more requests for hardware allowances - and since we have extra Windows Server licenses, we just do it. Productivity is through the roof. Using V-motion, we can move sessions between servers - something that takes no time and no down time.
Intelligent Design
Primary visible difference:
You can run VMware Server VMs headless and can connect to the console remotely.
Workstation, you cannot.
I find it highly amusing that the "server" versions of windows all ship with a complete copy of directx (including direct3d, and support for various gaming-related networking protocols and joysticks etc)...
If you watch the movie Hackers, you will find out that real servers are accessed by virtual reality interfaces where you get to fly over a landscape of translucent towers with glowing green lettering on them, while pounding on neon acrylic keyboards.
For this sort of futuristic server interface, you definitely need DirectX. Microsoft is just being forward thinking by including DirectX in their current server products, in anticipation of their Vista Server product, which will make full use of it.