Microsoft To Support CentOS Linux In Hyper-V

jbrodkin writes "Long the enemy of Linux users, Microsoft is apparently seeing dollar signs in the Linux-dominated Web server market. Microsoft's virtualization software, Hyper-V, will immediately add support for CentOS Linux, a community version of Red Hat that even Microsoft notes is a 'popular Linux distribution for hosters.' 'This enables our Hosting partners to consolidate their mixed Windows + Linux infrastructure on Windows Server Hyper-V,' Microsoft said. In addition to Web hosting, this targets another area where Microsoft is stuck in second place: the virtualization market dominated by VMware."

Comments

As seen in another Slashdot sig...

[GameboyRMH]

Running Linux in a VM on Windows is like strapping yourself to the outside of a car with a seatbelt.

Re:does anybody really use hyper-V?

[Anonymous Coward]

"not trolling"

"Reboot host and have to shutdown all your VMs at least once a month?!!"

Not trolling you say? What's the last version of Windows you used? 98?

Re:They're a business

[LBArrettAnderson]

I don't think anyone actually runs VMs under Windows
 
Are you kidding?

Re:Hyper-V isn't second. It doesn't even place

[MightyMartian]

If I'm just testing things, VMWare is free, and so is VirtualBox. Why would I want to pay for a very expensive Microsoft OS when there are free alternatives. Heck, I could just install any of the modern Linux distros and get KVM, which has very much matured in the last year or two.

Why would you even do it?

[hackus]

Honestly I cannot understand why you would virtualize anything but commercial software. It is a pain to manage without virtualization, it suffers from legacy problems due to all of the very big risks you take when you buy the license. You really have no benefits at all I can think of running commercial software.

Thanks to KVM, the commercial software I do have to buy, I can virtualize it, freeze the hardware requirements in time so it will always work forever and ever. Never need to reinstall it and it isn't if, but when the company goes tits up I am protected. I can dump the software on my terms.

I can even make a copy of it in case the hardware virtualizing the commercial software breaks.

Deploy it to a disaster recovery site and I don't have to have a huge checklist to go through to make sure it is configured right during recovery.

No stupid specific backup agents for commercial software's little proprietary databases they all like to create to make things even more expensive to use.

I left with the opinion that Hyper-V is a solution in search of a problem.

I would be using Cent OS with KVM to virtualize Microsoft's OS, where it is safely under the flipper of my penguin, where it can't make my life hell.

-Hack

Re:does anybody really use hyper-V?

[houghi]

If Hyper-V is the only thing running on Windows, just so you can run Linux, why would you run Windows in the first place? Just run XEN, KVM or even VirtualBox on Linux and have several Linux sessions run on that.

ANYBODY WHO KNOWS MICROSOFT

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Understands this is not a concession or olive branch.

It is a way to damage the RedHat business model. Trust me - Redmond will get to the point they offer Premiere support for CentOS on HyperV, starving RedHat of oxygen.

Even if it made them no money at all, Redmond has people who'd love this outcome, and set MBOs for this.