Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Hyper-V Leaves Linux Out In The Cold
whitehartstag writes to mention that Microsoft has announced their new Hyper-V as feature-complete. Unfortunately the list of supported systems is disappointingly short. "No offense to SUSE Enterprise Server crowd, but only providing SUSE support in Hyper-V is a huge mistake. By not supporting Red Hat, Fedora, CentOS, and BSD, Microsoft is telling us Hyper-V is a Microsoft only technology. More Mt. Redmond, Microsoft center of the universe thinking. That's disappointing. Sure, if you are a Microsoft only shop, Hyper-V will be an option for virtualization. But so will VMware and XenServer. But if you run a mixed shop, Hyper-V won't solve your problems alone — you'll have to also add VMware or Xen to your virtualized data center portfolio. Or just go with VMware and Xen and forego Hyper-V."
Microsoft so totally missed the virtualization boat that came by a decade or so ago... I'd liken buying a virtualization product from Microsoft about with buying a vehicle from Merrill Lynch.
Are they only supporting SUSE E.S. as an ongoing policy? Or is it just the only one they've certified as of the first release?
Shouldn't any distribution based on a kernel build that doesn't require anything more or significantly different from the underlying hardware, relative to SUSE E.S. work just as well?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Microsoft can choose to support whichever companies that they want. AFAIK, only Novell has signed the Munich Agreement with Microsoft, so it makes sense for Microsoft to exclude the others. At a recent Launch event for Windows Workstation 2008, Visual Studio 2008 and SQL 2008, I saw only Novell was present (with a large booth) showing off Linux products and virtualized Windows environments. (Though it was funny listening to Steve B. try and pronounce SUSE.)
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
What a storm in a teacup. Will anyone except Microsoft shops want to run Microsoft's virtualization product? Will they care that Debian isn't a 'supported platform', whatever that means? It's not as if other Linux versions won't run; just you won't be able to get Microsoft's famously good technical support to help with setting them up.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
not knowing what hyper-v is, wtfishyperv came to mind as a tag. Fishy Pervert?
If they won't virtualize other OS's, then they are not an option to be the main os in places that make use of virtualization.
You'd think they'd WANT to support everything, and do it well, so that people would actually *want* to choose them as the host os.
Stupid.
Notice that these are supported systems. That doesn't mean that other OS's will not work.
Novell probably agreed to help Microsoft support Suse Enterprise. Redhat isn't playing nicley with Microsoft so Microsoft isn't going to play nice with Redhat.
Fedora? Not a chance. Fedora is cutting edge code. I have no idea why people use this for servers when there are better distros to use on a server.
CentOS? Well this is a better distro to use on server than Fedora but it is Redhat without the support and price tag.
Finally BSD? BSD is dieing..... Just kidding. I just don't think Microsoft feels that it is worth the time.
What I didn't see is if Solaris is on the list.
So buy VMWare or use Xen folks.
Really if you want to be a Microsoft shop and run Linux then you now have an option of a Microsoft blessed Linux. If you are not a "Microsoft" shop then you can use VMWare, Xen, or VirtuaBox and have a lot more options.
I guess on the bright side they are supporting a Linux distro. It could have been a Windows only vm system.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
And just what is Hyper-V? The summary doesn't explain it. I even went against the grain here read the article (gasp!) and the article doesn't explain it. It implies that it might have something to do with virtualization but doesn't really explain itself. The "article" appeared to be more of a comment than news.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
No, it's not a little early. When you make an announcement, the lid is open and Pandora's legend is all over your shoes. The announcement did not say Suse is the first to be supported, it simply only listed it as supported. AND when you drink the coolaid, do you ever feel guilty? MS has a reputation that spoils any mis-step that the marketing droids might make. In fact this is so prevalent that not many people actually believe MS unless it is in writing and PJ has signed off on it. No matter how unfair that might be, one only has to look at the circus that OOXML has become to know that MS are not to be trusted... sigh
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Why would you go to the trouble when other solutions just work? Trusting Microsoft to run Linux ... there is no propper analogy for such a stupid thing.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=216934&cid=17629948
Hyper-V is not a full fledged cpu/hardware emulator like VMWare and is more of a hypervisor which needs support from the client operating system (like Xen which they have a licencing deal with). This is because there are some hardware x86 instructions which conflict each other when run on two operating systems at the same time. So, there actually needs to be some client side code that needs to plug into the Linux kernel code. Right now, I guess only Novell has it in as they are MS's partner.
There could be several licensing problems with third party patents and licenses before releasing it as GPL. Or, it might not have been released now because Hyper-V has already been delayed a lot and the team must be in a hurry to push out the beta instead of testing it against every distribution of Linux in the wild.
Last of all, the headline. Novell SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 10 SP1 isn't Linux? The headline should've said only SUSE Linux Enterprise Server was supported. Instead, we have a inflammatory headline designed to rake in the hits from angry visitors. And it worked.
This space for rent.
Buy something that works and screw it up while breaking everything else.
Hell of a business model, isn't it?Find coupons in Greeley
I don't see why the parent was modded as flamebait. I think it is a valid observation or else Microsoft would have done better at interoperability.
Maybe it isn't arrogance that caused Microsoft to go this current route. It could be they are trying to force Linux out of their (presumed) territory. It could be an act of desperation as Microsoft watches the world move to open source operating systems and applications. These new Eee PC platforms that cost only a hundred bucks or so will be pulling the rug out from under Microsoft as they have to forgo profit just to stay in the game. And as finances in the USA tighten up, there will be even more pressure to leave the expensive proprietary closed source world behind in favor of the open and free siren song of Linux.
Priced Microsoft products recently? It's unbelievable -- especially when you can get most all functionality for free. And Linux is now much friendlier than it was before. While I am a Linux fan-boy, the facts are what they are and Microsoft is just as capable of seeing it as we are.
And any business setting that wants/needs to maintain some MS compatibility ought to look at Codeweaver's Crossover Office. I use it here and it lets me run Microsoft Office apps under Linux with no virtualization needed. They install and run fine. Same for a lot of other software that supposedly is Windows-only.
You realize that Microsoft BOUGHT the Virtual Server product from Connectix? They didn't actually make it. The quality of Virtual Server has no bearing on the quality of Hyper V, since they were developed by completely different companies, let alone teams.
Given that Hyper-V doesn't actually support virtualization except under Microsoft's shroud (Novell is part of it now), I see no way that it is going to actually do anything other than try to lock people into yet more Microsoft proprietary incompatible bullshit.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Sure, go ahead and choose Microsoft. The problem is that Microsoft has proven again and again that if you choose them, you can choose nothing else, ever. If you're fine with tying all your company's infrastructure to the whims of a convicted monopolist, feel free to do so, but sane people aren't ok with that. If Microsoft says your bug isn't important enough (if they even deem you worthy of acknowledgment), you are fucked, period. You can't switch to a competitor, you have too much invested in your infrastructure and if you have to change one thing, you get to change everything.
I'm not against having Microsoft as a choice. I just think people should realize WHAT they're choosing when they choose Microsoft, which is basically becoming their bitch and paying for the privilege.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Do you think XAN and other projects like the possibility of incorporating MS patents into their codebase?
Novell have stated that their main focus is now 'interoperability' via the Microsoft patents that have been granted to them. Novell's corporate culture has no compelling reason to avoid implementing MS patents; quite the opposite in fact. Their execs are making increasingly flaky, shift statements WRT patents as well.
I don't think it odd at all that they are mistrusted.