Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft and Red Hat Team Up On Virtualization

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the don't-go-the-way-of-the-novell-bird dept.

mjasay writes "For years Microsoft has insisted that open-source vendors acknowledge its patent portfolio as a precursor to interoperability discussions. Today, Microsoft shed that charade and announced an interoperability alliance with Red Hat for virtualization. The nuts-and-bolts of the agreement are somewhat pedantic, providing for Red Hat to validate Windows Server guests to be supported on Red Hat Enterprise virtualization technologies, and other technical support details. But the real crux of the agreement is what isn't there: patents. Red Hat has long held that open standards and open APIs are the key to interoperability, even as Microsoft insisted patents play a critical role in working together, and got Novell to buy in. Today, Red Hat's vision seems to have won out with an interoperability deal heavy on technical integration and light on lawyers."

7 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. It is a good sign by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 4, Insightful

    another step forward for Open Source and a sign that Microsoft can adapt.

    1. Re:It is a good sign by Anthony_Cargile · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...or, more than likely, this.

    2. Re:It is a good sign by stevey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That solution is quite interesting, because its the sort of thing that a lot of people were expecting to happen - virtual images being used as black-box applications.

      I love the idea of being able to download a webserver in a box, or a caching HTTP proxy server. There are many other applications which would be nice to see provided like this. Of course in my case I would be hosting them on Linux, but I guess whatever host machine you use is irrelevant so long as you understand it and can support it.

      Of course I'm a little biased when it comes to spam filtering, but I hope the idea of custom VM images catchs on more generally.

      There are downsides such as the overhead of emulating a whole machine for a single service, but I'm sure the benefits outweigh them if you have spare host capacity (*2 for redundancy)

      I'm curious though, did you configure the guest yourself, or find it as a pre-rolled virtual machine image?

  2. But I still don't understand... by Anthony_Cargile · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...Why you would run Windows on top of Linux, given not only the stability history but also since now there are now FOSS alternatives for almost anything Windows can provide, without taking a huge hit to the "total cost of ownership".

    On a lighter note, wonder what the VMware guys are thinking about all of this - it's basically the end of what has always been their niche, except for Parallels but they weren't as datacenter-ready as VMware and were established mainly to make virtualization software that can run OS/2.

    1. Re:But I still don't understand... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...Why you would run Windows on top of Linux, given not only the stability history but also since now there are now FOSS alternatives for almost anything Windows can provide, without taking a huge hit to the "total cost of ownership".

      Two words: Microsoft Exchange.

      --
      My blog
    2. Re:But I still don't understand... by talksinmaths · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why you would run Windows on top of Linux, given...there are now FOSS alternatives for almost anything Windows can provide

      Even if that were true, in practice companies don't just swap out production environments because alternatives potentially exist. What works well for you may be problematic in even a slightly different environment. Others have mentioned apps for which OSS interoperability isn't there yet, and I'd add Group Policies and other AD centric tech to the list (although I admittedly haven't checked out recent versions of Samba lately, so maybe I'm wrong on that). I'm as big of an OSS advocate as there is, but part of advocating effectively is knowing where limitations exist and dealing with them rationally rather than sugar-coating them. I agree with the gist of what you're saying though, and there are a lot of shops that could lower TCO by exploring the alternatives.

      --
      Don't you have someone you'd die for?
  3. Re:Take *that* Novell! by thomascameron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How does this qualify as "neutralizing?" RHT gave up nothing. F/OSS doesn't suffer at all. This is no different from making RHEL work with any other third party closed source technology like Oracle or SAP. RHT and MSFT have simply recognized that there is a need for this interoperability, but RHT basically forced MSFT's hand and MSFT backed down. This is, if anything, a huge victory for F/OSS.