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."'"

8 of 258 comments (clear)

  1. Sigh... by djupedal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

  2. It's Microsoft being themselves by Vskye · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...
  3. Bring it on. by plierhead · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  4. actually, MS does many creative things by alizard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:Everybody now by ocbwilg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    (chorus) Switch to GNU/Linux.

    You know, I toyed with the idea of modding your post down as overrated, but then I thought that it made more sense to explain why rather than just do it. To put it simply, not everybody can switch to GNU/Linux for their datacenters. In a lot of vertical markets the only products available (or at least the best products available) run on Windows. Even if there may be a reasonable GNU/Linux alternative available there can be a significant barrier to entry in the form of long-term contracts, or an entrenched user base numbering in the thousands. Let's be realistic here, for many companies (especially larger companies, the type that are most likely to use virtualization) it's not simply a matter of swapping out Vista and Office for Ubuntu and OpenOffice, and then tying it together with OpenLDAP on the back end.

    In my case I work for a software company that develops enterprise application software that is used by most banks, insurance companies, and large manufacturers. We actually started as a Unix-only application, but eventually we had to start developing for Windows simply because that's what the market place demanded. Now we develop and support on both platforms. Our in-house datacenter is heavily virtualized, and our servers are split roughly 50% Windows and 50% Linux/UNIX. Phasing out Windows in our case would not only be incredibly stupid, it would literally kill the company.

    Don't get me wrong, OSS is great. We use it a lot, and it has it's place. But it is not some sort of magic bullet, and it definitely is not the answer to every IT-related question.

  6. Re:Virtualization in the OS? by babbling · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. No, this is *very* clever. by babbling · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

    1. Re:No, this is *very* clever. by Watson+Ladd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And when has Microsoft ever made something safe? Their solution to buffer overruns is not ASLR(address space layout randomization) but making all programs run in a VM. This doesn't work as a lot of apps still will use unmanaged code and a lot of flaws exist in the security model of the VM. In over 30 years of work on the security model of Unix people still discover flaws, especially in X11. Microsoft only had a security model 7 years old, still in flux, and we are supposed to trust it? They have a horrible track record on security. For them to say that VM's are a security risk is hypocritical considering that .Net is a VM. And for them to say that they make something more secure then the completion would be laughable.

      --
      Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD