Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft and Red Hat Team Up On Virtualization

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."

43 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 Caboosian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      More like another step closer to the lion's den for open source. Embrace, extend, extinguish.

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

      ...or, more than likely, this.

    3. Re:It is a good sign by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      That's no moon!

    4. Re:It is a good sign by von_rick · · Score: 5, Informative

      No moon? Then where does Moonlight come from?

      --

      Face your daemons!

    5. Re:It is a good sign by twiddlingbits · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, it means Red Hat sees a market that customers would like to run Windows as a VM under Linux. It just means they'll validate each OS works as a VM under the other's Hypervisor, nothing more. No licenses, no patents. I can see running Windows under Linux as a VM (BSOD only takes down the VM and bringing up a new VM takes seconds..not a 3 minute reboot) if you MUST support something that is Windows legacy but have chosen to go Linux with RH Virtualization in the Data Center. Why you would want to run Linux under the MS Hypervisor is the strange question, unless you just wanted a Linux "sandbox" for some reason. I suspect to get the MS stamp of approval for Windows under Linux they required the reciprocal agreement from RH.

    6. Re:It is a good sign by thomascameron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Had RHT entered into the BS agreement that NOVL did, I would agree. In this case RHT stuck to their guns and MSFT blinked.

    7. Re:It is a good sign by alexborges · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He he....

      No man, this means microsoft is now on its knees. And Novell is proven to have done it the wrong way and now look like idiots.

      A great day for FOSS!

      --
      NO SIG
    8. Re:It is a good sign by V!NCENT · · Score: 2, Funny

      Assuming that Moonlight is the Death Star...

      Good point!

      --
      Here be signatures
    9. Re:It is a good sign by postbigbang · · Score: 3, Insightful

      IF Red Hat had squat for mature virtualization, it might make a difference. RH is behind, way behind, and it's a nice gesture, good for the press, and RH has lost out to VMWare, Novell's Xen product line, Citrix's XenServer, and even xVM/VB.

      It sounds sweet, but it's a meaningless sort of announcement in the face of a ton of mature competition.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    10. Re:It is a good sign by vux984 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why you would want to run Linux under the MS Hypervisor is the strange question, unless you just wanted a Linux "sandbox" for some reason. I suspect to get the MS stamp of approval for Windows under Linux they required the reciprocal agreement from RH.

      Its not that strange. My first home linux servers ran as VMs under windows, primarily for comfort reasons. I've since gotten comfortable enough that its now linux on linux.

      And at work, we have a linux spamassassin VM running on a windows server, simply because that was the simplest deployment option. (We already had the light load Windows Server. Sure we could have installed a linux host, and then run both the Windows Server and spamassassin as VMs under it, (and we would have if we were building the box from scratch), but there wasn't any real point doing that given the windows server was already running just fine.)

      And on the desktop... you want the host system to be your primary OS, and VM the others. I personally need windows enough that it would just be silly to run Linux and then VM XP or Vista. And I don't foresee being able to flip them around anytime soon.

    11. 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?

    12. Re:It is a good sign by kamochan · · Score: 5, Funny

      I've since gotten comfortable enough that its now linux on linux.

      LOL action :D

    13. Re:It is a good sign by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      I ultimately rolled it myself. Partly as a learning exercise, and partly because none of the pre-rolled VMs were quite what I needed. And I didn't know enough to reconfigure them to work the way I needed. (Although now, having rolled my own, I probably could customize a pre-rolled VM.)

      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)

      Yeah, the overhead of emulating a whole machine is the downside, but the advantages in terms of flexibility, service isolation, and simplicity are clear.

    14. Re:It is a good sign by postbigbang · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Didn't say one was necessarily better than the other, if you'll read my post. RH hasn't been a leader. They're playing ketchup right now.

      As far as my 'ignorance' is concerned, take a real look at which each vendor is offering. Sun is also way behind in mindshare, and perfection of their offering, while solid, hasn't exactly captured mainstream fancy. Xen performance is absolutely different as currently provided/supported by each vendor, and that's well documented.

      Novell's Xen seems to be slowest, while Citrix's XenServer is fastest where it counts. And each version is absolutely different than the next. It's like saying that a specific distro, because it's based on 2.6.XY must always be exactly like any other distro based on 2.6.XY. Indeed the Xen derivatives aren't based on the same version, and their performance results are completely different as well.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    15. Re:It is a good sign by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why you would want to run Linux under the MS Hypervisor is the strange question, unless you just wanted a Linux "sandbox" for some reason.

      I've seen a few places that were Microsoft shops - AD, Exchange, SharePoint and all - but still used Squid as a proxy, and/or Apache for at least part of the intranet. A lot of admins seem to simply prefer these over MS options (ISA in particular is rather hated, or so I hear), and do not trust them to run well enough on Windows boxes.

    16. Re:It is a good sign by postbigbang · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We'll see. It would be nice if they got off their dead asses and did something with the acquisition. They're four years behind the market. Only fanbois seem to defend silly behavior like that. Let's see, six market competitors, one with five years, two with four years, one with 2.5 years, and SunComeLately. Then RH. I wish them the very best of luck. It's a tough VM world out there. Just because it's RH and Linux KVM means little these days.

      NOCs with 1000s of servers running tens of thousands of VMs, now that means something. Today, RH might be the hosted OS/VM, but Red Hat is responsible for virtualizing about zippo/nada/SFA/Zero/Huh-uh VMs. There's a long way to go for them, statistically. That lunch has been eaten, IMHO.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  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.

    2. Re:But I still don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, 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,

      No, there isn't. Perhaps there should be, but there isn't.

    3. Re:But I still don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...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".

      The big need is for situations like this. The hospital where my wife works has RedHat based servers for imaging acquisition and viewing and MS/Cerner for business (booking etc). Getting effective integration for the two has been a PITA because of Microsoft. Hopefully this will change.

    4. Re:But I still don't understand... by mmell · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Need to support proprietary applications? (MS Exchange comes screaming to mind)

      Need to support MS Windows user base? (Terminal services, the setup my current employer uses to provide Windows desktops to technical services personnel; although we use VMWare for the task due to licensing issues with MS Windows/virtualization licensing issues)

      Rapid prototyping/development/testing of new Windows technologies? (an appropriate initial hardware investment means no cost associated with purchasing hardware for short-term initiatives)

      There are more. Much as I dislike MicroSoft's products in general, they do have the one desktop more employees are likely to be able to use without first being trained.

    5. Re:But I still don't understand... by deque_alpha · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's because of the "almost". There are a lot of people who, right or wrong, believe that they can only get by with whatever Windows-only "Program X" provides. For these people, "close" is not "close enough". When the gearheads who like Linux need to support these applications, virtualizing a Windows instance on Linux makes a lot of sense.

      Even for a pure MS shop, virtualization introduces a lot of flexibility, so that too would be a reason to virtualize.

    6. Re:But I still don't understand... by alexborges · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because people, especially bussiness people that sign checks, still like (or dont know any better) some MS products.

      Some other people have vested investment in MS based things and they are not going (nor they should if the industry can prevent it by DOING ITS JOB) to spend it all over again so that they can feel nice about themselves.

      --
      NO SIG
    7. 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?
    8. Re:But I still don't understand... by dave562 · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are a lot of "niche" products that run on Windows without an open source alternative. Take a look at "The Raiser's Edge" It is the number one fundraising software in the world and is used by non-profits of all shapes and sizes, from the Red Cross on down. There isn't a FOSS equivalent. For the little niche world I work in, take a look at The Museum System. It is the number one collections management database used by museums all over the world, from the Tate, to the Guggenheim, Smithsonian, etc. Again, there isn't an open source equivalent. Those are just two examples from my current job. When I was consulting, I ran into all sorts of little programs without an Open Source equivalent. A client of mine was in the waste management business, there were three different software packages target to that industry and all of them ran on Windows. Another client was a city government and their licensing / permit database was Windows based.

      All of the above mentioned softwares could be recreated in open source, but doing so is an up hill battle. The companies that use them don't have the revenue streams to do the development in house. Potential developers aren't going to target small niches where they have to reinvent the wheel because the competitors already have a huge head start.

    9. Re:But I still don't understand... by vux984 · · Score: 3, Informative

      ...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".

      No. There aren't. Period. There is no FOSS alterantive for LOTs of things, and even when there is switching is cost prohibitive and pointless.

      accounting: nope. And migrating to a linux alternative even if one existed would be monstrously expensive for any business of size.

      photoshop/illustrator: nope. sure there is the gimp etc, which is all fine and good. But you need to integrate with a workflow where you are exchanging files with other businesses etc you have to use the tools they are using.

      microsoft access, filemaker pro, 4D... millions of highly custom applications exist for these to fit business needs. Even if an alternative "application building framework" exists on Linux, the cost of migrating and reimplementing these applications is prohibative. Companies that rely on these won't even consider switching until FM, 4D, etc run on linux natively.

      sql server - lots of businesses rely heavily on this. And even if postgresql or mysql, etc could do the job, again, its a massive amount of work to migrate from one to the other.

      exchange - nothing needs to be said.

      visual studio - sure linux alternatives exist, and you can even just use vi or notepad, but VS2008 is REALLY good.

      The above isn't a small list of niche products or categories that only affect a handful of businesses. Millions of businesses rely on multiple of them.

      Oh, and at home, there are games blocking a lot of people from leaving windows.

    10. Re:But I still don't understand... by pdabbadabba · · Score: 2, Informative

      Or, on the desktop, name any Adobe product - Illustrator, Photoshop, InDesign._

    11. Re:But I still don't understand... by MrNemesis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why *wouldn't* you run windows on Linux if you had the chance?!

      From a seasoned VMware ESX admin speaking from an operational standpoint;

      First, I'll explain a few things. Servers today are so mind-bogglingly powerful that even with virtualisation overhead they're easily capable of providing more than enough grunt for hordes of enterprise crapware that, due to shoddy programming or testing, would otherwise be sitting on $7000-worth of barely-utilised tin since the support agreement stipulates "we refuse to support you if you install so much as a text editor on the same machine" - I'm sure anyone else in any SME will agree that this sort of thing is rife. Throwing patch cycles to the side, my number one problem with these legions of power-sucking high-maintenance windows servers is shoddy drivers/firmware.

      ESX, itself a highly specialised Linux-based OS, builds on Linux's rock-solid hardware stability and abstracts away everything so that all windows sees is a unified blend of generic hardware, for which VMware provides their own set of (high quality) drivers, plus some old ones that have worked in windows since the year dot - think OSX on steroids. The ESX boxes basically have the highest uptimes in our entire organisation, plus clustering them is an absolute cinch. Large scale storage is provided by a fibre-attached EMC SAN, which coincidentally also runs a highly specialised Linux-based OS providing CIFS, NFS or dedicated block devices (LUNs). Tools such as P2V make cloning a physical box into a virtual machine a point'n'click operation limited only by your network throughput, and you can even do nifty things like resize that 5% used 137GB filesystem into a 10GB virtual disc.

      Furthermore, thanks to LVM-alikes, you can take an instant snapshot of a system. This allows you to do things like make a snapshot, install patch XYZ, do regression testing and whatnot and roll back if things are unsatisfactory. With windows' reputation for patches not being entirely reliable, this is an utter godsend for development and testing.

      So at the end of the day, running windows on top of gets you:
      Better "hardware" reliability
      The ability to consolidate X U's/Y Watts worth of servers into (X-n) U's/(Y-n) Watts worth of servers, leading to lower overall datacentre expenditure
      Built-in clustering for people with shared storage
      Built-in failover
      Much more robust and/or cheaper methods for development, testing, patch management

      The only downside* to ESX is cost - it's not cheap. And an alliance between RH (pretty much the corporate face of Linux, especially for windows shops) and Microsoft is likely to send the cost for ESX down before the fruits of it's labour become evident. As long as TFA is correct that there's no IP ownership bollocks going on, this is a win for everybody.

      * Not to say that ESX isn't without its flaws, but it certainly has less than most apps you run into in this business. I've heard that VMware is a very much engineer-driven company, and that's true from my POV.

      Disclaimer: I don't work for VMware, but when I can dispense with 96U's worth of servers, shave 8kW of our datacentre power budget, increase availability plus reduce downtime at no cost in performance then you colour me impressed. There's no reason why a competing VM system can't do the same thing.

      --
      Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
    12. Re:But I still don't understand... by pdabbadabba · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I didn't say that Photoshop isn't overrated, or that it isn't overpriced. I don't know that either of these allegations are true, but I wouldn't rule them out.

      But, the fact is, and it sounds like you agree, that Photoshop has quite a few features that the Gimp doesn't, features that a number of us find useful. And even if I agree with you that 90% of users don't need these features, that leaves 10% of us who do.

      And this is not to mention the rather shop-worn UI issue.

      Again, I love the Gimp and have nothing but respect for the people who make it. I use it daily and would be the first in line to shake the developers' hands if they ever were to dethrone Photoshop as the king of photo-manipulation software. Its just that, today, they aren't there yet. Many tasks remain that are either only possible or much easier in Photoshop.

    13. Re:But I still don't understand... by neowolf · · Score: 2, Informative

      One word: Outlook

      There just isn't anything in Linux that comes close in a corporate environment, period. I could have everyone in my office on Linux and/or Macs if it wasn't for that. It doesn't run (very well or at-all) under Wine or CrossOver, and there is no native Linux alternative that works reliably (or at all with Exchange 2007).

      Evolution tried, and failed. I don't really blame them though- Microsoft will probably NEVER release their internals for the Outlook/Exchange marriage, and will continually change the way they communicate just to throw off any competition that tries. Microsoft knows that Outlook is one of the only things keeping many businesses from moving to Linux right now, especially after the Vista fiasco.

      That said- I would much rather see Red Hat support existing solutions that already work well in Linux, like xVM/VirtualBox, than sign any kind of agreement with Microsoft. Microsoft's visualization solutions are garbage compared to VMWare and xVM. Sure- it would be nice if they supported Linux, but who would really want to run Linux on a Windows host except to "play" with it? When I'm running virtual machines- I like to have the host OS be rock-solid, not the other way around.

      So- a lot of Linux people run Windows VMs just to use Outlook, because their home office tells them they have to. There are also still a few other Windows apps that there are no good Linux alternatives for, but that list keeps getting shorter. There are also still brain-dead companies that insist on writing all of their online applications using .NET and M$ DRM. If you are stuck dealing with such companies- a Windows VM is a necessity.

    14. Re:But I still don't understand... by Kalriath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You just linked to an article complaining about Exchange 1.0. Seriously, what the fuck? They've release AT LEAST 7 versions since then!

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    15. Re:But I still don't understand... by MBGMorden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not only that, but lots of businesses run SPECIFIC software packages where switching over is a $100k+ expense just in the data conversion. And of course there's the little issue that yeah, Linux provides plenty of alternatives for your average desktop user, but not your whacky business programs that places tend to use. I've still yet to see a Linux or F/OSS product meant to do CAMA (Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal) functions, or manage building permits and subdivision planning, handle the calculating and billing of property taxes, to handle the filling of veterans benefits claims, or to track the progress of police K-9 unit training. That's just my own requirements working in a government environment, but each particular industry presents it's own challenges, and the open source world often just has nothing to offer there because those programs are often so obscure that unless you needed it you'd never even think of it, and most importantly: the software is generally pretty boring, and few volunteers will write that type of software.

      Trust me, if it was possible I'd switch to Linux wherever I can - lately though I've found that beyond the email gateway, the file server, and the web server, most of my servers just have to run Windows due to the software that they must run.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    16. Re:But I still don't understand... by Kalriath · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Evolution tried, and failed. I don't really blame them though- Microsoft will probably NEVER release their internals for the Outlook/Exchange marriage, and will continually change the way they communicate just to throw off any competition that tries.

      Actually, they've publically released (without any fanfare whatsoever) the entire Exchange server protocol. And there's always Exchange ActiveSync (though that'd have to be a paid addon, since they don't license that for free).

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    17. Re:But I still don't understand... by Michael+Hunt · · Score: 3, Informative

      Accounting: I'm surprised that there are no real FOSS contenders in this space; at least on the low end, such packages are perfectly suited to a subscription model (hey, those tax tables don't update themselves.) This is a niche, however, where people probably feel better paying for a bit of piece of mind (nobody ever expects an audit...)

      Photoshop/Illustrator: GIMP is 90% there for 90% of people. Opens PSD files, so it would seem to fit into most folks' workflow. I'm honestly not sure where Inkscape is at, but it's only going to get better.

      Access/etc: If your business depends on Access or something similar, you're almost better off running it on Windows. When you scale it, you can scale it onto a better platform.

      SQL Server: I think you'll find that Postgres can 'do the job' significantly better than SQL server under almost all workloads. Mysql is, of course, a running joke amongst anyone who knows what they're talking about. Obviously, if you're going to migrate to a new DBMS, there's going to be pain. SQL 2005 to Postgres is no more or less painful than Oracle 9i to SQL 2005.

      Exchange: There are umpteen trillion unix-based (OSS, free beer, AND payware) 'groupware' suites. Most of the better ones have an Outlook plugin if you're still using Office.

      Visual Studio: The choice of an IDE is INCREDIBLY subjective. I have /never/ liked Visual Studio, although that's not to say that others aren't more productive using it than using any other IDE. Developers, ultimately, need to be able to choose their own IDE; as long as it integrates with the higher level workflow and speaks the same language dialect as the rest of the team, who really cares? I know some people who swear by Eclipse (which I tried at the start of last year and didn't like much,) and some people who won't code using anything except nvi. For what it's worth, I find that Code::Blocks has a great feature:heft ratio.

      You're right about one thing, though: games. At home, the ONLY use I have for windows of any stripe is the (sadly, more than) occasional reboot into XP64 to play Farcry 2 or Fallout 3 or the depressingly bad port of Saints Row 2. This will change, however, and not in the direction that most people are hoping. Consoles are already in the process of murdering PC gaming to the point where all we'll get given to us are bad console ports (Saints Row 2 was the most egregious example, on a 4-way 3.2GHz machine with a GTX260 the framerate fluctuates between 3 and 85fps) loaded up with DRM and other nonsense. Of the three games I mentioned, only Fallout 3 considered the PC to be a first-tier platform, and that's most likely because of Bethesda's history as a PC development shop and the fact that the Fallout 3 engine is a direct descendant of the Morrowind engine.

      After the next generation of consoles, I'd expect gaming on Windows and Linux to be roughly at parity, and I'm not expecting anyone to port too many more games to Linux. Wine will run the bad ports well enough, and there will be a thriving third party aftermarket for keyboard/mouse connectivity kits for consoles.
       

  3. Re:Et tu, RedHat? by thomascameron · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Read TFA. This agreement contains *none* of the bullshit IP limitations Novell agreed to when they sold out. In this case Red Hat and MSFT are only cooperating from a *technical* standpoint. RHT are not agreeing in any way that Linux owes MSFT any IP rights. This is amazing news and sticks a finger in the eye of Novell's sellout.

  4. Re:This has got to be bad. by zappepcs · · Score: 2, Funny

    Don't worry... satan will not let this work, he doesn't do cold.

  5. The Thorn that is Virtualisation by segedunum · · Score: 5, Informative

    Virtualisation has been a bit of a curveball that Microsoft hasn't liked for some time. It gets people off the hardware and upgrade churn, whilst sill upgrading their real hardware, and allows people to run previous versions of Windows and applications pretty much indefinitely. It also gives the potential to outflank Windows technology by bypassing it in the virtual machine itself and surrounding Windows with non-Windows systems. Additionally, ubiquitous, freely available virtualisation is going to end up ruling, and ultimately that means an open source host running something like KVM. I suppose Microsoft had to try and do something. They want to try and get into all of this somehow, and I suppose it does mean they sell more Windows licenses and Red Hat gets to run Windows certified on their platforms which should please some people.

    It's a real kick in the teeth for Novell. This is a perfectly straightforward deal of certifying each other's systems on their virtual platforms that Novell couldn't get right. In practice, Microsoft is providing no help whatsoever to Novell in running Windows on their virtual platform (which I don't think Red Hat is expecting itself really) and they sold themselves down the river by agreeing to some elaborate coupon scheme that saw SLES servers totally surrounded by installations of Windows Server and AD domains. I don't think they even realised what they'd signed up to. At least Red Hat gets some marketable press out of this without conceding anything.

  6. 2 minute summary of Hyper-v Vs Xen Vs VMware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Theres an interesting read over at the 360 blog here., which covers the debate/fight between these 3 giants quite nicely.

    AG

  7. Or to quote Woody Allen by wsanders · · Score: 4, Funny

    "The lion and the lamb will lay down together, but the lamb won't get much sleep."

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
  8. 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.

  9. Re:Red Hat = Microsoft by thomascameron · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yeah, sure, cause MSFT does all of their development in the F/OSS community and gives away their technology for free just like RHT does with the Fedora Project. And MSFT has open sourced (or kept open source) all of their acquisitions like RHT did with Sistina (GFS and Cluster Suite), JBoss, Qumranet, Netscape Directory Server, Netscape Security System and others. Oh, and MSFT has paid for legal counsel to testify *against* patents in front of the EU and the US. Yeah, I can see how Red Hat is *just* like Microsoft.

  10. Re:Et tu, RedHat? by init100 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We are 3+ years on after the signing of the Novell/MSFT deal and there has been zero legal action by Ballmer and his cronies.

    Nobody in the know were really worried about actual legal action. What people were actually worried about was that Microsoft's patent threats might be scaring away people from FOSS.

    What the Novell/Microsoft deal primarily did was to lend credibility in the eyes of some people that to use many FOSS packages, you needed a patent license from Microsoft. The same applies to Linspire, Xandros, and the rest of those that actually signed patent deals with Microsoft over FOSS.