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."'"
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 suggest you to look into IBM's System i product line.
They've got a fancy Hypervisor in Hardware (called the FSP, flexible service processor). Linux is supported natively.
The Managment Console is running Linux, too.
... 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.
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.
What's I find interesting about your comment is that Microsoft sees virtualization as a major component of their future anti-virus solution.
How's that?
It's what they used to call Palladium, and a key component is the use of virtualization as a kind of a souped-up chroot jail for attack-prone apps -- if you run the browser in its own VM (on top of a minimal, secure OS), then when you close the browser and shut down the VM, any viruses that were able to get in via the browser die with it, assuming they couldn't write themselves into some persistent storage.
Traditional Windows apps couldn't run in such VMs, of course, but it offers a way to have secure apps without losing the ability to run old apps -- insecurely, of course.
Oh, and it would also enable all of the strong DRM crud, because it would provide a nice way to protect certain VM'd apps from manipulation/debugging by the user.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.