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."'"
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.""
Virtualization belongs below the operating system, let's say in the BIOS.
I'm confused here, maybe some of you poeple who use virtual machines (more than me) can help me out. I've posted a few questions and points I am either interested in, or do not understand..
=============
Where is the boundary between a "virtual machine" and a "real one"?
After all, the BIOS is definately part of the machine/motherboard and thats SW. If there is another layer of SW inbetween your OS and you HW why should that be any different? I would treat a "virtual" machine as essentially the same as a "real" one - surely in the eyes of the law they must be the same, no?
M$ changing the license restrictions seems as though they are essentialy stepping outside the OS box and determining the physical HW you are and are not allowed to run on. Whats the legal situation here, has this been tried and testing in a court?
Can they actually prevent any version of Windows from running in a VM if that version of Windows cannot detect it?
At the end of they day if a court rules a VM and a real PC are legally the same, where would that leave M$?
... I do know a little legal theory, and it occurs to me that:
a) the passage that denies permission to run Vista Home et al in a VM is rather ambiguous, in that it could just be a clarification that the rule that allows you to run the higher-end versions in a virtual machine *at the same time* as a real machine doesn't apply. I'd really like to here official comment from MS's lawyers about how they intended this to be interpreted, and so far I haven't seen any.
b) Even if the ambiguity is only small, it still seems to be there to me, and the rule of contra proferentem should mean it is interpreted in the consumer's favour.
c) It might not make a difference anyway. As I understand it (and I'll admit my understanding of this area is rather fuzzy, because it is a very obscure corner of contract law that I've only heard about once, so I could be completely wrong), for a contract term to be enforceable, one or the other party must derive some legitimate benefit from it. I don't see what legitimate benefit MS derive from restricting the use of their products in this fashion.
to facilitate a competitor (that is, to make changes to its software so that a competitor's software will run). It does, however, have the moral and legal obligation as a monopoly to not change its license in anti-competitive means.
If VMWare can show that it's as much about anti-competition as it is anti-piracy, they have a valid argument.
On other news, I have just assembled myself VIA'a Mini-ITX system for whooping 325€ and installed Linux on it.
Let's compare. Real mini PC + Linux at price of 325€: small, noiseless so it can be put on book shelf and be forgotten about.
Now VMWare/Windows virtualization: VMWare Workstation/Player $190/$0 + M$Windows XP Home/XP Pro/Vista $100/$200/$250. (*) The modern full featured offering (VMWare Wrkst + Vista) would set you off for $190+$250=$430.
Can anybody explain me advantages of virtualization? You get indecent performance for heavy bill. So what the deal breaker???
(*) Linux option is removed since VMware constantly breaks Linux guest support. And vmware-tools are broken too.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
Once again I as a consumer have to ask. What is MS doing that no one else is doing?
Windows is a 'licensed use' 'closed source' OS. That up front should tell anyone what they need to know about it.
So I have to ask, why is there such outcry that you can't install certain Vista versions in a VM for production or daily use? The last time I checked you can't install OSX in a VM NO MATTER WHAT according to the Apple license.
So every user complaining about this policy from MS, should also write a letter to Apple demanding they let OSX run in VMs legally as well.
At least MS fully licenses the non Home versions to work in VMs, and still allows developers to test home versions in VMs.
So if this really angers you, then you have choices. First you should write Apple and all other Closed source OS companies that don't allow their OSes to run in VMs.
Your next choice is simple, don't like it, don't freaking use it, there are plenty alternatives.
If companies have a software product THEY NEED that only runs on Windows it would be FAR CHEAPER and easier to install a cheap Windows server and let users run that application via terminal services. Also a lot easier to deploy and support than mass amounts of VMs scattered throughout the offices.
As for developers, most developers can get free or trial copies of any windows version for testing, and you can get by the 'license' if you need to test your product on Home Basic even in a VM.
MS is also working with Xen and doing virtualization as a lot of OSS and technical people would want, yet because this puts VMWare at a disadvantage, they get to cry wolf and try to create some PR out of how they get hurt.
If VMWare wants to cry about this, then fine let them cry. But if they want to succeed then they need to create a product that is simply BETTER than MS's VM or anything out there. That is the only way they will succeed, especially considering they have the entire *nix VM Host market as MS doesn't even try to make a non Windows Host version of their VM software.
So get over it VMWare and just do what you do best.
If this was REALLY about OS licensing to run under VMs, then they would also be talking about OSX and tons of other OSes that do not allow usage in VMs; instead they are focusing only on two versions of MS Vista.
This should have been the first clue to everyone that VMWares motives are not as pure or consumer minded as they want people to believe.
Example 1: WinCE vs. PalmOS
Really? PalmOS is still widely used. Look at the smart Phones being sold There is usually at least 2 with PalmOS maybe 3 with Windows CE, and the rest are blackberries.
Example 2: Xbox 360 vs. Playstation 3
Don't Blame Microsoft on this on Sony was just SUPID! Too little to Late, way to expensive. Sony played a Vista with its Playstation 3.
Example 3: Internet Explorer vs. Netscape
Well netscape went underground and opened its source for the Mozilla foundation. Then Firefox came along based on Netscape Code.
Example 4: Doubledisk/doublespace vs. Stacker
Didn't Microsoft steal that code? And just use a hex editor to change the name or something. Also for software like this you really can't blame MS as an attempt to kill the competition it is more of a way to give functionality to their OS. Programs like Stacker, Desqview, Quemm... Are really hacks to the current OS, that do what the OS Should do anyways.
Example 5: Windows vs. OS/2
I guess some of the blame can go to Microsoft and some evil, because they advertised Windows 95 to be far more then what it was, Windows Vista is one step closer to offering what Microsoft promised us in Windows 95. So when people had to choose they had to pick of OS/2 Warp or Windows 95 With Microsoft making seem like the ultimate OS vs. OS/2 more legit advertisements got people wanting Windows 95 mostly because of fears of OS/2 Running DOS/Windows Apps Slower then windows 3.1. Which in reality I doubt anyone except for people you need to benchmark that stuff will notice the difference. Also OS/2 did a lousy marketing job on OS/2 Warp. I saw the add when it was released and I knew what the product was before the add. But to anyone who didn't know what OS/2 Warp was wouldn't get it. "It was a bunch of people going wow this is cool" but that is about it.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Example 5: Windows vs. OS/2
These are the ones that matter. MS won the desktop war by convincing manufacturers to bundle Windows with every PC. IE won the browser wars by being bundled with Windows, and therefore most PCs. Bundling the virtualization with Windows will be a major advantage for MS, but it's still no guarantee. They don't even own the server market like they do with desktops
Bull! IBM shot themselves in the foot so many times I am suprised they could still find feet to shoot.
I used OS/2 for years on a dual head set up. The 1st nightmare was configuring the dual heads. Finally a chap in Boca Raton was nice enough to tell me the magic - all was undocumented of course. It worked. The 8514 card and the Svga card actually worked as advertised (by IBM in their Red Books - which I bought)
But... when I switched from a DOS window it froze and blanked the screen. If I switched from an OS/2 session it just froze the screen. I think it was some perverse manager who figured that in order to encourage running OS/2 apps and discourage running DOS apps that they should pull this dirty little trick. As a developer - it just made my life difficult and meant that I couldn't tell my clients how great OS/2 really was... and why? Because it wasn't. How would anyone feel if the moment a window lost focus the OS blanked it? Hell - you don't need to look at your code buddy when you are running the app! What do you want a 2nd monitor for anyways? But in an OS/2 session they didn't need to blank anything.
Next - the single thread problem and the OS locking up. It was never fixed that I know of. I never did upgrade past Warp. I ended up buying NT4.0 much as I hated to do so - and it ran beautifully and ran the monitors properly too.
Then, a blessing was OS/2 apps! Microsoft did it right. I used Brief under NT4.0 - the OS/2 version. It ran BETTER in NT than it ever did on OS/2 and I didn't have to put up with Frozen screens.
Oh.. tech support! I bought and paid for tech support the whole time I had OS/2. I used it many more times than I wanted too. IBM made me wait on hold - and when the level #1 intake operators came on line they INSISTED on getting every hardware configuration detail and details of my CONFIG.SYS file.. and others. This was even if I already KNEW what the problem was and wanted to simply ask for a work around. This happened OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER.
I offered to write a program for IBM which would collect all this information and send it via modem to their tech support people. My GAWD but it was horrible having to give them the same damn information every damn time. How hard would it have been for a company like IBM to set up a damn database indexed for instance by my phone number and record the conf once? Nope!
I wrote letters to them and suggested setting up an app to scan the system for pertinant config and hardware information... so it could be xmitted via modem. I never heard back from them.
Well - I bought Warp. I replaced it with NT 4.0. I have never looked back.
IBM did it all by themselves. It was their own arrogance and incompetance which destroyed the product. Even the simplest issues could not be effectively dealt with.
Virtualization in Windows is good for us.
The only one who is going to be harmed is cygwin/mingw32 because people will run OSS software in VirtualDistributions [VirtualDistributions will appear in the next year and will be minimal ISO files for virtualizing a linux environment in windows]. And enough with all the crap to make applications portable for cygwin. Just make it run on linux and it is automatically portable to a virtualized linux.
And if you want to virtualize windows, you can, with kqemu which is now GPL. And your customers can virtualize linux and run your software. What is the problem?
VMWare will lose the money and I should care, why?