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."'"
...Microsoft is using dirty strategies to fight a competitor. Films at 11.
(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.
I wonder if he has judicial ambitions.
It's not as if anyone in charge of a datacenter is going to be foolish enough to run Vista; most places that require things to work have a predominance of Windows 2000 server, with a few win2k3, Win NT4 and OS/2 boxes.
banks and government won't touch it; heck, the U.S. Military made it a criminal offense to run Windows XP on a secured network, until microsoft bribed them with a few thousand essentially free licenses.
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
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
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$?
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
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.
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.
...to support VMWare and buy a license for a great piece of software which you're probably using anyway. I am a Debian user and free software enthusiast, but I bought my license for VMWare workstation years ago and never looked back. VMWare is one of the very few commercial programs which I consider worth spending money on. I never had any real problems with it (at least since version 5, which is what I bought), it's fast and a pleasure to use. Maybe Xen or KVM will replace it in the long run, but I'm sure I'll keep on using VMWare for at least another two years.
I know this sounds like an ad, but even their Linux support is great. I had some issues with VMWare 4 (I was using the trial) and asked on the newsgroup; the answers were quick and helpful.
VMWare is exactly the way software should be. If you use it and like it you should really consider buying it.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Yes there is a double standard - one standard for a small/medium player in a competetive market, and another standard for a company with a near-total monopoly.
Yes, Apple have a restrictive license that only allows you to run OSX on genuine, non-virtual Apple iron.
BUT If you don't like that then you are perfectly free to vote with your feet and buy one of the 95%+ of other computer systems available that don't run come with OSX.
Except... nearly all of those other 95% of systems are running MS software. Even if you complete the uphill struggle to buy one without MS Windows included and run Linux/*BSD/BeOS then sooner or later the 95% of the world who didn't bother will oblige you to use Windows for some task or other.
Are you saying that Apple, with a few % of the market, should be subject to anti-monopoly rules because their only competetor has a near-monopoly??
In short, if Apple ever gain 50%+ of the desktop computing market they'll have to face the same anti-trust responsibilities as Microsoft. The only area Apple are within a sniff of that is with iTMS, and then only if you don't count CD sales as digital music distribution. Until then, every time they decide on a restrictive license, impose a lock in, or piss off a software house by incorporating an application they have to balance the benefits to them against a genuine risk of losing customers to the competition.
In the meantime, MS have - through their Vista licenses and the ridiculous premium charged for "stand alone" copies of Windows - made it extremely expensive to legally run Windows as anything other than your primary operating system.
Sometime, Apple will have to support virtualization on OSX Server in order to compete with Linux and Windows. Currently, I don't think there is a significant demand (personally, I don't even see why you'd want to use OSX as a server, when its USP is its user interface).
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.