Slashdot Mirror
VMware-Microsoft Battle Looming
An anonymous reader writes "VMWare released a white paper detailing its concerns with license changes on Microsoft software that may limit the ability to move virtual-machine software around data centers to automate the management of computing work. Two choice quotes: '"Microsoft is looking for any way it can to gain the upper hand," said Diane Greene, the president of VMware.' And, '"This seems to be a far more subtle, informed and polished form of competitive aggression than we've seen from Microsoft in the past," said Andrew I. Gavil, a law professor at Howard University. "And Microsoft has no obligation to facilitate a competitor."'"
(chorus) Switch to GNU/Linux.
"This seems to be a far more subtle, informed and polished form of competitive aggression"
Just wait a bit - I'm sure that by the time it hits the front page and the dust settles, it will prove to only be another example of the heavy-handed recidivism we've all come to expect out of redmond. MS can't innovate...can't spot new markets...can't ignore a plum in someone else's grasp, without the targeting systems being brought online. '...Microsoft has no obligation to facilitate a competitor'
As has been said in the past - investing in MS is asking to have your own money used against you in the marketplace.
"We set out to partner with Microsoft," said Peter Levine, president of XenSource, "and VMware chose to compete with Microsoft."
Because partnering with Microsoft in a space they want to own has always been a workable strategy, right? Apparently Mr. Levine has been either been asleep for the last ten years, or is determined to be happy with whatever crumbs Microsoft throws him before the poison takes hold.
Same old Microsoft. They can't invent crap anymore, so when a company such as VMware comes out with something that works, is innovative, MS does what they do what they always do best..., restrict the competition. I hate MS just like most /. users, but just once I'd like to see them actually create something original. (yep.. and like that will happen anytime soon)
Life was hell, then I discovered Linux...
Bring it on Microsoft.
Pissing off the suits that run large data centers and have drunk the virtualization koolaid might just backfire big time for MS. When those execs realise that linux is free to virtualize they'll have a TCO factor bigger than anyone can hide sitting right in front of them. Microsoft will be shafting themselves if they try preventing virtualization.
[x] auto-moderate all posts by this user as insightful
microsoft, with its billions, is blind in making strategic business decisions, but you, some slashdot postager, is the one who truly understands what is best for microsoft's business. right.
The MS Research organization is first-rate.
And they do the same great job of getting things to market that Xerox PARC used to do.
MS really doesn't know what to do with good ideas.
Tech Public Policy stuff
"From the article: "When quizzed on Microsoft's plans, Mr. Ballmer replied, "Our view is that virtualization is something that should be built into the operating system."" VM == Virtually Microsoft's?
The problem with Ballmer's comment (not yours) is that the Operating System is what we want to virtualize. While VMWare ESX is probably almost as much of an operating system as Windows is, it's definitely a lot more stripped down and tightly focused on doing only one thing (providing virtualization) and doing it well. If you have a general purpose OS that also supports VMs, and you run VMs inside that OS, then you're asking for problems. Not just from a performance standpoint, but security as well. This kind of thinking is one of the reasons why their Virtual Server product is so far behind VMWare's ESX.
It was a good run. Seriously-- once MS decides to push you out of the market, you're as good as dead.
Example 1: WinCE vs. PalmOS
Example 2: Xbox 360 vs. Playstation 3
Example 3: Internet Explorer vs. Netscape
Example 4: Doubledisk/doublespace vs. Stacker
Example 5: Windows vs. OS/2
etc. etc. etc. Sometimes, it takes a while-- like how they're still struggling to make MSN relevant-- but, in the end, they always get what they want. They simply have too much money-- and, therefore, too much clout-- not to.
I'm not saying I agree with this. Quite the opposite, in fact. However, VMware is doomed. (Film at eleven.) You read it here first. Call me a pessimist, but I've seen the writing on the wall. I should have seen it coming when Microsoft released Virtual PC as freeware.
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
When Apple discourages virtual machines running OSX, this is reluctantly accepted because, well... gee, they're Apple and we won't do this unless they say we can.
When Microsoft discourages virtual machines running Windows: Booo! Hisss! They're EEEEvil!
Double-standard much?
At this point someone usually makes comments about Microsoft making money on the software, Apple making money on the hardware. But it's their business plan - not yours - so I'm sure it does make sense for Microsoft to not permit it. For one, copy protection doesn't work since you can duplicate the entire virtual machine.
From the article: "When quizzed on Microsoft's plans, Mr. Ballmer replied, "Our view is that virtualization is something that should be built into the operating system.""
What really belongs in the OS is a self-defense mechanism against malware and viruses, but for whatever reason Microsoft has chosen to let bottom feeders like Symantec live.
Anti-virus should be an included part of the OS along with updates. It's addressing flaws in the product.
backyard. Eveyr company wants to play in MS's backyard, build it up to be profitable, and then are surprised that the hog wants their profits through any means possible. What amazes me is that companies have not learned that if they put their best work on MS and slight or even not build on other platforms, they kill their long term viability. Several others that are slowly disappearing are Adobe and Intuit.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Symantec are not the problem. Symantec is the partial/flawed solution to a problem that Microsoft hasn't fixed. The problem is so large that there is an entire market created by it.
This is evil-genius-style clever.
If Microsoft used the license agreement against Virtual Machines at the same time as releasing their own, they'd get into legal trouble. Legal trouble is a pain in the neck, so what they're doing is saying that "Virtual Machines are a security flaw" and banning them from the operating system. Then, later on, as a complete coincidence Microsoft is going to create "a Virtual Machine that is safe". Luckily for them, the coincidence that they have crafted doesn't involve any competitors!
Microsoft makes Virtual PC, which is a competitor to VMWare's products. Not much of a competitor admitidly.
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
But VMWare only is a "competitor" because VMWare was making some money and Microsoft just couldn't let their cash vaccuum miss any potential revenue. Had Microsoft stuck to what they do "best", VMWare wouldn't be a competitor and that whole aspect of the argument would be moot.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
If it isn't in the Operating System it can't be embedded into the Windows and so MicroSoft can't kill other implementations.
Actually in x86 platforms Virtualisation should be at least on the OS because if there is no virtualisation initialisation the system can be exposed to a virualisation enabled malware.
No, I apparently can not. There doesn't seem to be a link out there; however, this is what my memory can serve up. When XP came out, DOD CERT checked it, and said that it should not be used on any network where classified material was available; after SP1, they checked it again, and still it was banned. I left government work for a while after that, and did not keep up with it. Then, about 3 years ago, a friend was wanting to get my opinion on some laptops he was getting for his unit; he forwarded me a link to the systems, and they only came with XP home, I told him that as far as I remembered, XP was not allowed. He said that a few months back, Microsoft had done a big deal with the folks at the pentagon who do the policy on what is allowed, and after something like 3 million XP licenses were added to the deal, the security restriction from DOD CERT went away. This could be some really good mental memory hallucination, I DO hate XP and the way that MS has tried to kill Win2k in its favor, but I'm pretty sure that was the deal; I have to think that someone else on /. remembers it.
NOTE: there are some posts that come up on google referencing this, but they do not provide an informational link to a press report or anything like that.
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
The anti-virus products are actually the virus. They drain more system and system administration resources than the viruses they block (and do *nothing* against the others) and their presence lets the OS vendors who should be dealing with security issues directy shirk that duty. Symantec and co. are the problem, not its cure.