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."
...or, more than likely, this.
...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
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.
No moon? Then where does Moonlight come from?
Face your daemons!
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.
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.
Theres an interesting read over at the 360 blog here., which covers the debate/fight between these 3 giants quite nicely.
AG
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?
I've since gotten comfortable enough that its now linux on linux.
LOL action :D