Slashdot Mirror
Dell Considers Bundling Virtualization on Mobos
castrox writes "Ars Technica is reporting that Dell may be considering bundling virtualization on some of their motherboards. No more dual boot or VMs inside the running OS? 'Any way you slice it, though, putting the hypervisor in a chunk of flash and letting it handle loading the OS is the way forward, especially for servers and probably even for enterprise desktops. Boot times, power consumption, security, and flexibility are all reasons to do this ... The big question is: which hypervisor will Dell bundle with its machines? Vance suggests hypervisors from XenSource and VMware as two options, but I think that VMware is the most likely candidate since it seems to be the x86 virtualization solution of choice for the moment. However, if Dell doesn't try too hard to lock it down, this system could easily be modified in an aftermarket fashion to include almost any hypervisor that could fit on the flash chip.'"
What I am about to say is strictly off the record. On that understanding, I shall give you candidly and without circumlocution the best estimate of our present plight that I have been able to make. Let me begin by citing a range of examples from the public sphere. For starters, I am not a robot. I am a thinking, feeling, human being. As such, I get teary-eyed whenever I see Bill O'Reilly insult my intelligence. It makes me want to make efforts directed towards broad, long-term social change, which is why I'm so eager to tell you that O'Reilly's editorials do not represent progress. They represent insanity masquerading as progress. This much is clear: He recently went through a clericalism phase in which he tried repeatedly to rifle, pillage, plunder, and loot. In fact, I'm not convinced that this phase of his has entirely passed. My evidence is that O'Reilly contends that truth is whatever your grievance group says it is. Sounds rather disaffected, doesn't it? Well, that's O'Reilly for you. If there is one truth in this world, it's that I respect the English language and believe in the use of words as a means of communication. Morbid, overweening vulgarians like him, however, consider spoken communication as merely a set of noises uttered to excite emotions in treasonous criticasters in order to convince them to take us over the edge of the abyss of hedonism. Any meaningful analysis of the situation must allow for the fact that O'Reilly's most incoherent tactic is to fabricate a phony war between unbridled big-mouths and discourteous-to-the-core worrywarts. This way, he can subjugate both groups into helping him trick our children into adopting unconventional, disapproved-of opinions and ways of life. I really don't want that to happen, which is why I'm telling you that O'Reilly has nothing but contempt for you, and you don't even know it. That's why I feel obligated to inform you that he wants to monopolize the press. Personally, I don't want that. Personally, I prefer freedom. If you also prefer freedom, then you should be working with me to convince the government to clamp down hard on his vaporings.
O'Reilly, you are welcome to get off my back this time and stay off. He wants nothing less than to lure the amoral into his coterie. His hatchet men then wonder, "What's wrong with that?" Well, there's not much to be done with oppressive, hotheaded mountebanks who can't figure out what's wrong with that, but the rest of us can plainly see that O'Reilly claims that Man's eternal search for Truth is a challenge to be avoided at all costs. I assert that the absurdities within that claim speak for themselves, although I should add that if O'Reilly can give us all a succinct and infallible argument proving that the Universe belongs to him by right, I will personally deliver his Nobel Prize for Irritating Rhetoric. In the meantime, I recently received some mail in which the writer stated, "O'Reilly's 'compromises' are a veritable dictionary and synonymicon of frotteurism." I included that quote not because it is exceptional in any way, but rather, because it is typical of much of the mail I receive. I included it to show you that I'm not the only one who thinks that in a tacit concession of defeat, O'Reilly is now openly calling for the abridgment of various freedoms to accomplish coercively what his randy announcements have failed at. It may be obvious but should nonetheless be acknowledged that O'Reilly is a walking time bomb of credentialism. That should serve as the final, ultimate, irrefutable proof that even when the facts don't fit, he sometimes tries to use them anyway. He still maintains, for instance, that the sky is falling.
Do you ever get the feeling that on many issues, discussions with O'Reilly quickly turn into fights, and dialogues soon degenerate into name-calling? Well, you should, because if anything will free us from the shackles of O'Reilly's whiney anecdotes, it's knowledge of the world as it really is. It's knowledge that he hates people who have huge supplies of the things he lacks. What O