unless you are a geek/hobbyist or you are managing a datacenter, what would be the practical use for virtualisation? i'm the former and i use virtualbox to to run windows on one of my linux boxes. i don't smoke and you microsoft shills appear to be the ones with clouded minds (no pun intended). you seem to think just because i understood where the op was coming from that i don't know anything about virtualisation. While I have you here, I would really like to know how it feels to be a moron?
i didn't imply virtualisation meant cloud, and you took my comment out of context. obviously virtualisation is meant for datacenters and running multiple servers on the same hardware. what the op was getting at is that (non-datacenter service provision) companies who virtualise using datacenter services are putting trust in people who are more remote to them than the traditional in-house IT dept or local service company. virtualisation may not be the same as the cloud, but the two are very closely related; the cloud wouldn't be economically viable without virtualisation. software as a service doesn't depend on virtualisation (just your typical lamp config) but hosting business servers remotely is the domain of datacenters and until virtualisation came about they could only accommodate a fraction of the clients they can now. you may manage multiple virtualised servers in a datacenter environment, but the op was talking about the rest of the world losing control of their data to these datacenter companies (so perhaps in a way he was targeting you).
i'm not lazy, and you haven't proven anything. i'm fully aware of shared storage; how do you think i could successfully switch a service from an old server to a new one using a cat5 splitter with a toggle switch if the two machines weren't accessing the same data? shared storage has little to do with benefits of virtualisation. my question was how to you change hardware without disconnecting sessions that are connected to the guest os? i'm also aware of fast network reconnections, but if i was in the middle of copying a big file and someone migrated the server through which i was copying from (using shared storage or not), i can't imagine how my copy wouldn't be aborted - it seemed like that's what you were implying you could do with your op. i would be quite happy to be proven wrong. just don't expect me to be fooled by irrespective technobabble. i found http://www.vmware.com/products/vmotion/features.html via your google link and there was nothing that seemed overly impressive and nothing that mentioned maintaining network sessions ("zero downtime to the end-users" doesn't mean it doesn't lose connections - even if its only for an instant).
"In 2 to 10 seconds" - i could do the same thing with a toggle switch in a cat5 splitter... 0.05 second downtime!... i can see where you're coming from though (for vms under the same hypervisor). the problem with your scenario is that you aren't really upgrading anything. you might do it if your guest os has been corrupted or riddles with malware, but otherwise you're still just migrating from one vm to another on the same physical hardware. does it work as well if you migrate to different hardware?... yes i know google is my friend, but i would rather you back your claim here (if that's ok), and i'm not implying you're wrong; it just seems a bit incredible on face value.
i think the op was referring to placing trust in datacenter companies rather than an inhouse it department or local support company, not running virtualised servers on your own hardware - what would be the point of that? do you really think microsoft developed hyperv for you to run it on your own hardware (or office365 for that matter)? its getting more and more cloudy everyday.
Re: "allows a person or company to "write once, use for years""... I can't even run 16 bit programs on Windows 7 (without virtualized "XP mode"). clearly using things for years isn't on microsoft's agenda
Re: "In 2 to 10 seconds? Live? Without people even losing their current open sessions?"
i would be interested to hear how you migrate a system to different virtualised hardware without disconnecting open sessions. care to elaborate?... virtualised hardware might be virtual, but its still hardware as far as the guest os is concerned.
datacentres use virtualization merely to squeeze more servers out of their existing hardware (equals more paying customers) so virtualization for anything else is really just a fad, and it has nothing to do with qos or uptime (which is more about hardware failover and eliminating spof - unless you use windows in which case the operating system is the single point of failure). customers care about "service", not "servers". redirecting a service to different hardware doesn't require virtualisation; more experienced geeks would no doubt have a much more elegant solution (that could be performed via ssh) but the simplest approach would be to disconnect the network cable from the old server and plug it into a ready-configured new replacement. i'm aware of tools like heartbeat and pacemaker for automated/remote failover, but i'm not experienced with that.
like cars, phones are designed for high maintenance costs. you don't really think apple because the richest company in the world because it sells quality products do you?
who doesn't like taking the piss out of islaves and microsoftcocks? -begins writing dodgy slashdot submission about apple discontinuing support for iphone 4 to force users to upgrade to new iphone running windows phone 7, which apparently runs on top of the linux kernel and violates gpl... flamewars are fun
they'll have to put a big sticker on the front warning users about not putting the phone anywhere near your ear. it'll go next to the stickers telling you that the phone isn't for eating, not to use it as a bath toy, and that Apple takes no responsibility for if you use your phone to order viagra from nigeria or if you get caught for downloading kiddy porn.
don't be too worried. if (when) china raises its taxes by 1c/$ (USD) it will become the wealthiest nation the world has ever seen, and americans will be paying for it (along with the interest on their national debt). i think i'd much rather be an australian than an american at the moment.
a patent is a patent. if the original assignee sells a patent, then the new owner has paid for all the priveliges of the original assignee. should someone who builds a house pay less annual rates than someone who buys a house? while i can understand where you're coming from with your idea, it seems a bit descriminatory and anti-competitive, and if the costs are higher for someone who buys a patent, that buyer will either/both expect to pay slightly less for it in the first place because the cost to benefit ratio increases for the buyer and hence the value of a bought patent reduces compared to now where the value of a patent to the original assignee and someone who buys one is the same, and also any corporation who buys a patent under your scheme will of course merely pass the increased cost off to their customers anyway (probably with added margin for the trouble), and this certainly won't put a dent in the market share of patent trolls like Microsoft, so everyone is worse off except Microsoft.
Re: "Perhaps we need to have a higher fee for patents held by someone other than that original assignees, say $5k per year, this way small inventors don't get hosed, corporations are more willing to give up unneeded patents and will file fewer applications"... you are not serious are you? The small inventors have enough trouble getting funding for real R&D and patent applications, and $5k/year is peanuts to those who are abusing the system (big corporate). Charge more and you'll lock small inventors out all together and patents will be the sole domain of the super-rich corporations. I think its a good first step for the courts to acknowledge that dodgy patents are dodgy because even if someone fixes up the uspto, so much damage has already been caused by the millions of (probably) dodgy patents already issued, so the only way they are going to be invalidated is in the courts.
i patent the "iKnife" and the "KnifePad", and while i'm at it i may as well trademark "PadPod" and "iScream", "iApple", "iOrange" and "iTurd". golly i'm so clever and inventive:P
"open source" doesn't necessarily mean "free". i'm sure if you paid microsoft enough money you could have access to Windows source code too. that's why the term "free and open source" was coined. there's also freedom and there's free beer. android source is apparently free as in free beer. just because you're not allowed to do anything with it (without google's permission) doesn't mean its not free. its just not free as in freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
unless you are a geek/hobbyist or you are managing a datacenter, what would be the practical use for virtualisation? i'm the former and i use virtualbox to to run windows on one of my linux boxes. i don't smoke and you microsoft shills appear to be the ones with clouded minds (no pun intended). you seem to think just because i understood where the op was coming from that i don't know anything about virtualisation. While I have you here, I would really like to know how it feels to be a moron?
i didn't imply virtualisation meant cloud, and you took my comment out of context. obviously virtualisation is meant for datacenters and running multiple servers on the same hardware. what the op was getting at is that (non-datacenter service provision) companies who virtualise using datacenter services are putting trust in people who are more remote to them than the traditional in-house IT dept or local service company. virtualisation may not be the same as the cloud, but the two are very closely related; the cloud wouldn't be economically viable without virtualisation. software as a service doesn't depend on virtualisation (just your typical lamp config) but hosting business servers remotely is the domain of datacenters and until virtualisation came about they could only accommodate a fraction of the clients they can now. you may manage multiple virtualised servers in a datacenter environment, but the op was talking about the rest of the world losing control of their data to these datacenter companies (so perhaps in a way he was targeting you).
i'm not lazy, and you haven't proven anything. i'm fully aware of shared storage; how do you think i could successfully switch a service from an old server to a new one using a cat5 splitter with a toggle switch if the two machines weren't accessing the same data? shared storage has little to do with benefits of virtualisation. my question was how to you change hardware without disconnecting sessions that are connected to the guest os? i'm also aware of fast network reconnections, but if i was in the middle of copying a big file and someone migrated the server through which i was copying from (using shared storage or not), i can't imagine how my copy wouldn't be aborted - it seemed like that's what you were implying you could do with your op. i would be quite happy to be proven wrong. just don't expect me to be fooled by irrespective technobabble. i found http://www.vmware.com/products/vmotion/features.html via your google link and there was nothing that seemed overly impressive and nothing that mentioned maintaining network sessions ("zero downtime to the end-users" doesn't mean it doesn't lose connections - even if its only for an instant).
at least in australia i can still own a home on a middle income. the new american dream is to merely avoid welfare for as long as possible.
"In 2 to 10 seconds" - i could do the same thing with a toggle switch in a cat5 splitter... 0.05 second downtime! ... i can see where you're coming from though (for vms under the same hypervisor). the problem with your scenario is that you aren't really upgrading anything. you might do it if your guest os has been corrupted or riddles with malware, but otherwise you're still just migrating from one vm to another on the same physical hardware. does it work as well if you migrate to different hardware? ... yes i know google is my friend, but i would rather you back your claim here (if that's ok), and i'm not implying you're wrong; it just seems a bit incredible on face value.
i think the op was referring to placing trust in datacenter companies rather than an inhouse it department or local support company, not running virtualised servers on your own hardware - what would be the point of that? do you really think microsoft developed hyperv for you to run it on your own hardware (or office365 for that matter)? its getting more and more cloudy everyday.
Re: "allows a person or company to "write once, use for years"" ... I can't even run 16 bit programs on Windows 7 (without virtualized "XP mode"). clearly using things for years isn't on microsoft's agenda
Re: "In 2 to 10 seconds? Live? Without people even losing their current open sessions?" i would be interested to hear how you migrate a system to different virtualised hardware without disconnecting open sessions. care to elaborate? ... virtualised hardware might be virtual, but its still hardware as far as the guest os is concerned.
datacentres use virtualization merely to squeeze more servers out of their existing hardware (equals more paying customers) so virtualization for anything else is really just a fad, and it has nothing to do with qos or uptime (which is more about hardware failover and eliminating spof - unless you use windows in which case the operating system is the single point of failure). customers care about "service", not "servers". redirecting a service to different hardware doesn't require virtualisation; more experienced geeks would no doubt have a much more elegant solution (that could be performed via ssh) but the simplest approach would be to disconnect the network cable from the old server and plug it into a ready-configured new replacement. i'm aware of tools like heartbeat and pacemaker for automated/remote failover, but i'm not experienced with that.
like cars, phones are designed for high maintenance costs. you don't really think apple because the richest company in the world because it sells quality products do you?
lexan? ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarbonate ... can be made clear: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexan#History ... btw apparently they tested the moon helmets with a sledgehammer
who doesn't like taking the piss out of islaves and microsoftcocks? -begins writing dodgy slashdot submission about apple discontinuing support for iphone 4 to force users to upgrade to new iphone running windows phone 7, which apparently runs on top of the linux kernel and violates gpl... flamewars are fun
islaves are all full of hot air anyway so they'll just supply a hose to plug into your arse
they'll have to put a big sticker on the front warning users about not putting the phone anywhere near your ear. it'll go next to the stickers telling you that the phone isn't for eating, not to use it as a bath toy, and that Apple takes no responsibility for if you use your phone to order viagra from nigeria or if you get caught for downloading kiddy porn.
that's already been patented
don't be too worried. if (when) china raises its taxes by 1c/$ (USD) it will become the wealthiest nation the world has ever seen, and americans will be paying for it (along with the interest on their national debt). i think i'd much rather be an australian than an american at the moment.
because there's no such thing as a free lunch, and the Australian government is more financially responsible than the American government
Australia is too full of iSlaves
...and just buy a chinese ripoff... http://kotaku.com/5549865/china-rips-off-the-ipad-with-the-iped ... just goes to show how much patents are truly worth
a patent is a patent. if the original assignee sells a patent, then the new owner has paid for all the priveliges of the original assignee. should someone who builds a house pay less annual rates than someone who buys a house? while i can understand where you're coming from with your idea, it seems a bit descriminatory and anti-competitive, and if the costs are higher for someone who buys a patent, that buyer will either/both expect to pay slightly less for it in the first place because the cost to benefit ratio increases for the buyer and hence the value of a bought patent reduces compared to now where the value of a patent to the original assignee and someone who buys one is the same, and also any corporation who buys a patent under your scheme will of course merely pass the increased cost off to their customers anyway (probably with added margin for the trouble), and this certainly won't put a dent in the market share of patent trolls like Microsoft, so everyone is worse off except Microsoft.
Re: "Perhaps we need to have a higher fee for patents held by someone other than that original assignees, say $5k per year, this way small inventors don't get hosed, corporations are more willing to give up unneeded patents and will file fewer applications"... you are not serious are you? The small inventors have enough trouble getting funding for real R&D and patent applications, and $5k/year is peanuts to those who are abusing the system (big corporate). Charge more and you'll lock small inventors out all together and patents will be the sole domain of the super-rich corporations. I think its a good first step for the courts to acknowledge that dodgy patents are dodgy because even if someone fixes up the uspto, so much damage has already been caused by the millions of (probably) dodgy patents already issued, so the only way they are going to be invalidated is in the courts.
"Let me come with you, Pontiu$. I may be of $ome a$i$tan$e if there i$ a $udden cri$i$!"
i patent the "iKnife" and the "KnifePad", and while i'm at it i may as well trademark "PadPod" and "iScream", "iApple", "iOrange" and "iTurd". golly i'm so clever and inventive :P
how they get it to not fuck around with the mobile signal might be interesting to read
"open source" doesn't necessarily mean "free". i'm sure if you paid microsoft enough money you could have access to Windows source code too. that's why the term "free and open source" was coined. there's also freedom and there's free beer. android source is apparently free as in free beer. just because you're not allowed to do anything with it (without google's permission) doesn't mean its not free. its just not free as in freedom.