1) Drop D? Twist the D-string tuner..... or curl your index finger when you do bar chords. Or fake it like Jimmy Page did.
2) Correct minor variations? Get the intonation set correctly the first time, with the strings you'll be using. Then don't eat fried chicken and pick up the guitar and expect things to sound right.
3) Crap guitars are like other crap investments: you end up spending lots of time curing the crap or apologizing for it. Not worth it. Spend the $$ to get a good axe.
4) If four other guitar players can't agree on a pitch, it's time to get out of the garage and ask mommy for some more brownies.
The twelve string argument has traction, however.
Yeah, let's get rid of all of those buggy and exploitable protocols and get somethings safe, serene, and a joy for ISPs to deliver.
Wait wait don't tell me....
Yeah, Internet II.
Uh oh, already been done? A worldwide OC-192 highway? Drat.
Sorry there, old salivating VC buds, perhaps it wasn't that simple. Maybe we need to look at it one step and application at a time. What-- we need to time data together so as not to cause multimedia latency issues? Drat.
In another way of thinking, actual efficiency of systems is about.03% (really). Therefore for every watt consumed, at least another watt is used to *cool*.
If we lived on ice year-round, then it's not waste heat. But every data center spends at least 2x maintaining an even ambient temperature.
Wonder why the CPU makers and server makers are suddenly on a 'green' bandwagon? Think again.
MuniWiFi was a bad idea: WiFi in the 802.11b/g format has cell sizes that are limited because of the channel allocation. It has lousy propagation characteristics. Add that to terrible security, and interference problems with other devices.
Then-- find a model that makes sense to fund all of this and get it deployed in such a way that it has real coverage, especially in sparse and highly dense areas. There are none.
And only the chipset makers (Intel, stop it before you lose what little credibility you've bought back) are pushing 'Muni' WiMax. The business models? Let's line Sprint's back pockets, Intels, and do what-- use the limited acessibility of WiMax in high density areas? It must be a huge fantasy for these guys because there is no reality that's going to allow the same mistakes to be repeated yet again. Earthlink nearly tubed getting WiFi going, and Google has backed off plenty. Even a fat telco push isn't going to make a market that doesn't exist today. Verizon has its EV.DO(and ev.do-a where it thinks it can make money), Sprint is trying for EV.DO+WiMax, the US GSM'ers have plainly awful problems with speeds faster than a five-year old modem, and WiMax is going to be a hit???
Of what price liberty? Of what price scrutiny? Of what price freedom of association? Of what price probable cause? This is an abomination, just as it is in the UK and elsewhere.
This is Chicago.... Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg's book on liberty focused on its brutality, discrimination, its perjury. Now it wants to watch us all, the good, the bad, the ugly, as we try and live life or visit.
Those what would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither-- Franklin
Journalism is a well known practice, but communications is much tougher.
The maximal information (says Jeremy Campbell in "Grammatical Man", a guide to entropy in information systems) is conferred when the speaker knows the most of the context of the listener.
I agree with that whole heartedly. This means that you have to know your target audience to be most effective, not necessarily the subject matter-- although it certainly has to help.
First, imagine that in a state, we'll call it T, that is time that is current, as in now, from the observer's viewpoint.
If matter can neither be created or destroyed, multiple instances of matter (e.g. energy, too, as one is the other) are not possible at T. Conservation is destroyed. Multiverses are inconsistent with this.
Kirkhoff's laws have to do with observations of states of electrical junctions; what goes in must come out, as observed at T. As visaged as a representative of conservation of electron movement, it also applies as an example of coherency as it applies to a single instance. Former instances had other states, as will future instances of the measurement at the junction at T.
Multiiple instances of energy/mass spawned in to or from a multiverse means that the basic nature of matter is not what we know. Imagine bringing multiple concurrent realities into realtime. If this has been done, we have no means to observe it so far, and these additional instances might be irrelevant as they may be real, but not realizable. I like that it's been fun to use quantum math to try to explain certain observations and this doesn't mean I don't believe the math behind it. Rather, multiverses, no matter the convenience of having theorems that seem to imply them, are conjecture until you can get past Heisenberg and find out where the cats actually are (as in Shrodinger). Without this observations, it's just seemingly clever explanation that contradicts direct observation. Call it application of existentialism over the conjecture of theorem. Denial? Perhaps! Skepticism-- absolutely.
The conservation of matter might mean that there are multiple manifestations, e.g. a multi-state of matter. In this unlikely scenario, matter is many things (energy, too) at once, and has been and always will be until it's stopped somehow. Re-entrance into the past becomes the future, as it changes the outcome of the present. In other words, the basis of reality, once altered, must be done in the future. It's a loop that may destroy or remove the instance, in a way, like nulling it. Imagine two phases 180 degrees from each other. They cancel each other out, when summed. Yet the energy/mass of the state is very high, and equally, very low, within the dimension and at the time measured. Conjecture....this is. What would remain in this conjecture is what we have as our reality.
If something changes in the past, then the past becomes the future. Time can be nonlinear (viz gravity and what it does), but it marches on. Observance of time, given its stretches, is what we measure the age of our perceived universe, and other both terrestrial and extraterrestrial objects. Red shift tells us how far away the stars are, as an example.
Dirac, Shrodinger, Heisenberg, Einstein, and many other physicists have tried to prove the uncertainty (and hence the superfluity of states) you describe.
The multiverse interpretation still battles with conservation of matter and energy, Kirkoff's law, and a raft of other problems. This heterodyning of the universe's time coefficient is impossible to swallow for me. I don't have to see the universe as a straight line. I do however, have to defy probability and defer to the actual. In a multiverse, probable pasts can exist. I don't buy that. Probable futures, yes, but there is but one which will emerge, no matter the number of observers or observations or where they observe from. It will be historic.
Is my time, traveling in a fast aircraft, different from the time on the ground of mother Earth? Yes. Is the fact that there is a variance proof of the observation of multiple times proof of multiple universes? No. For both, history is static. It was.
And say, in a Heisinger way: if the many many possible worlds aren't available to us, then by our observations, there is only one state that evolves strictly from the present.
The past is 'in concrete'. So far, no evidence that we can change it, otherwise it wouldn't be history or the past.
We can change, and do, the present, and cannot so far leap very far into the future (thus altering the time coefficient).
At the quantum level, so are things at the macro or universal level; it's the same number with significant digits or places to the right of the decimal point. You can observe the big (universe) picture, or the micro/femto/whatever particle you want level. They are the same, and one has the rules of the other; it's the observation point that's amusing.
The bottom line: should multiverses exist, we can't get to them, and they are therefore irrelevant and meaningless and more strangely, matter created and energy expended evolved from ether, which makes no sense to me. So many basic laws of physics are violated to explain multiverses that I can't accept the concept until these are rectified. Simple conservation of matter/energy prohibits this multi-state set of pseudo-universes.
These guys can't even keep a print version going. Wonder why? It's ok to ignore blogs where the author is both 1) clueless and 2) probably never compiled a kernel in his entire life. Nothing to see here.
Bankruptcy judges and trustees have carte blanche to deal with creditors, and limit the effects of ongoing litigation. On Monday, everything changes in front of Judge Kimball, who will put the suit into stasis, and give at least a 60 day cooling off period to everything.
It might turn into a Chapter 7 filing afterwards, and SCO might be forced to liquidate. This is unlikely, however. In the interim, they'll try to convince a judge or referee that they have IP assets that need protecting, along with their agreements with various companies, and will produce a lot of smoke in their quest to simply survive.
Much attorneys fees will be spent by many companies. Much continued incivility and plain poo will continue to be the hallmark of SCO's perhaps brief existence. Like others, they don't quit until they're just dead. Don't look for much come-uppance. This ends badly, just as it began badly.
No. The 'salvation' attitude at Microsoft will continue. They can do no wrong, and will defend each legal claim until exhausted (and have the money to do it, too). Their success is an accident of history, boorishness, and illegal behavior, as documented through hundreds of judgments. There's a nugget of good work done here and there, but you won't change their ego, their testosterone-driven hubris. It's silly to try. Step aside, let the train go through, and continue on. Let Gates retire, the sooner, the better. Mundie adds little.
The nice thing about dictatorship is that eventually, the dictators either retire or pass on, leaving lesser leaders in their place. These lesser leaders inevitably fail.
Read the corrected/updated story
on
AMD NDA Scandal
·
· Score: 3, Informative
There's a problem with semantics and terminology, depending whether you're a marketing person or the one that has to make things work. It's a typical problem.
Containers, sandboxes, and the like are operating system resources virtualization. Some have a greater degree of apparent instance autonomy than others.
Paravirtualized systems link a paravirtualized host OS with subsequent guest instances.
Direct translating systems are actually microkernels, sometimes loaded after a host OS instance that's replaced by the hypervisor or augments it (ESX is like the former).
Presentation virtualization is just remote access to an application or OS instance with a fancy name.
In the oil pipelines, copper was used; not much chance for explosion danger given low voltage. However, most of it was buried along side or in the same trench. In sewers, the explosion danger's high (methane), so they've cured the problems by running light inside fiber bundles.
It's dark fiber until it's lit. Putting cables into pipes has been around for 20+ years. Williams did it in natural gas pipes (and farmers sued them when they repurposed their easements illegally).
What this is, is a magnet for silly replies. Welcome to Monday morning.
We disagree: containers, sandboxes, and other single-OS-instance schemes are app VM; they don't reinstantiate the host OS. They may virtualize by re-instantiation many OS resources, multiple concurrent settings/processes/services/etc, but there's one OS, not multiple OS instances.
I would agree that Microsoft is VMWare's biggest competitor. Big guns. Connectix stuff is well matured and reincarnated, and Microsoft Systems Center VMM might be more than its other disconnected dirt at some point.
But your knowledge of Xen will be changed even now, if you go to their website, look at XenEnterprise V4, and get to understand how their paravirtualization components have been changed. You don't see Xen in data centers.....yet. But like VMWare, Xen's used in a lot of labs, developer pits, skunk works, underneath Virtual Iron, and so on. Presentation virtualization is a big reason why Citrix bought Xen-- there's going to be a fierce war over sending just presentation data as pipes get clogged with too many thick clients-- browser apps and multimedia that chews up wire space.
I'm not so sure about Virtuozzo; its mgmt components are ok.
Microsoft's VS seems to give a comfort level to homogeneous Microsoft 'houses'. Yet we've also seen it run Fedora seamlessly....although you can't get reasonable instrumentation without going to other stuff.
VMWare is nice, sexy, red, lipstick, and costs a fortune.
Yet Xen, while far better than early releases (ugly), seems to peak many interests in our web racks... for cost. Slick, it is not. But Citrix specializes in 'slick' and so we expect there to be interesting changes.
Unless you don't use Windows at all (and I'm not saying anyone does), the Microsoft VS will migrate onto Xen soon, too. Who'll win the race? Performance, price, reliability, in reverse order.
Microsoft's VS is the old Connectix stuff. It's ok, and changes when a new hypervisor becomes part of Windows Server 2008. They tend to focus on servers, because their heads are up in their behinds about using mulitple desktop OSes-- anything else but theirs.
Virtuozzo isn't a server VM, it's an app VM.
VMWare and Xen are a bit different. VMWare has lots of depth and maturity. Xen has nearly similar compatibility but has fewer API sets to work with it. Xen's app hosting capabililities are more astute and highly competitive with Microsoft's SoftGrid and Citrix's remote apps. That's why Citrix bought them.
Virtuozzo has roots in site hosting, and it's maturity with Apache also extends to OpenVZ.
Sun has x686 Solaris ports, and IBM's still heavily invested in Inel and AMD hardware, as well as their own Power and Cell CPUs. and SUSE (Microsoft's new best friend) has ports on IBM iron, ranging from tiny stuff up to S390) which I'm sure Sun is jealous of.
IBM, now that SCOx has essentially been wiped from the screen, wants more business, and they don't make that much from Windows stuff. They sell IRON and SERVICES. They stopped operating systems at OS/2 and decided to let others do it. Fine.
IBM has service revenues and gets into a lot of NOCs. They like Linux, 'cause it's all value (read $$) add. They understand iron, they understand services.
The multi-core UltraSparcs are an engineering marvel.... and they're selling like old mortgage debt on Wall Street right now. That silly Linux stuff is pumping it out. Call it a toy if you want, but a bullet is a bullet and if you don't need howitzers, bullets are fine. Add in VMWare, Xen, or whatever, and you have a loaded gun with several rounds in it. That's where servers are going right now: virtual.... and Solaris containers aren't so wonderful.
Microsoft is getting bitten at the ankles by just about everyone. Let's count the ways: uh oh, SCOx will soon run out of money and will stop biting the ankles of IBM and Novell. Pity. Adobe wants to bring an office suite to market. Google hires Sun's StarOffice to be in their bundle. Several companies, weakly but in a virgin kind of way, start selling desktop Linux of various flavors. Microsoft co-opts Ubuntu and makes a slave of Xandros. How silly.
Add to the cake Steve Jobs stealing thunder wherever he can seed clouds. Salt it up with rotten DRM in Vista, and an underwhelming adoption when your server sales are cannibalized by your own inability to ship Windows 2008/Longhorn server.
As Vonnegut might say, Microsoft is feeling the breeze that occurs when the excrement hits the airconditioning. Schwartz is still upwind of that.
Slashdot Mirror
than my Osborne I.
Oh- wait, Adam Osborne was from Thailand.....
1) Drop D? Twist the D-string tuner..... or curl your index finger when you do bar chords. Or fake it like Jimmy Page did. 2) Correct minor variations? Get the intonation set correctly the first time, with the strings you'll be using. Then don't eat fried chicken and pick up the guitar and expect things to sound right. 3) Crap guitars are like other crap investments: you end up spending lots of time curing the crap or apologizing for it. Not worth it. Spend the $$ to get a good axe. 4) If four other guitar players can't agree on a pitch, it's time to get out of the garage and ask mommy for some more brownies. The twelve string argument has traction, however.
Yeah, let's get rid of all of those buggy and exploitable protocols and get somethings safe, serene, and a joy for ISPs to deliver.
Wait wait don't tell me....
Yeah, Internet II.
Uh oh, already been done? A worldwide OC-192 highway? Drat.
Sorry there, old salivating VC buds, perhaps it wasn't that simple. Maybe we need to look at it one step and application at a time. What-- we need to time data together so as not to cause multimedia latency issues? Drat.
In another way of thinking, actual efficiency of systems is about .03% (really). Therefore for every watt consumed, at least another watt is used to *cool*.
If we lived on ice year-round, then it's not waste heat. But every data center spends at least 2x maintaining an even ambient temperature.
Wonder why the CPU makers and server makers are suddenly on a 'green' bandwagon? Think again.
reasons.
MuniWiFi was a bad idea: WiFi in the 802.11b/g format has cell sizes that are limited because of the channel allocation. It has lousy propagation characteristics. Add that to terrible security, and interference problems with other devices.
Then-- find a model that makes sense to fund all of this and get it deployed in such a way that it has real coverage, especially in sparse and highly dense areas. There are none.
And only the chipset makers (Intel, stop it before you lose what little credibility you've bought back) are pushing 'Muni' WiMax. The business models? Let's line Sprint's back pockets, Intels, and do what-- use the limited acessibility of WiMax in high density areas? It must be a huge fantasy for these guys because there is no reality that's going to allow the same mistakes to be repeated yet again. Earthlink nearly tubed getting WiFi going, and Google has backed off plenty. Even a fat telco push isn't going to make a market that doesn't exist today. Verizon has its EV.DO(and ev.do-a where it thinks it can make money), Sprint is trying for EV.DO+WiMax, the US GSM'ers have plainly awful problems with speeds faster than a five-year old modem, and WiMax is going to be a hit???
Of what price liberty? Of what price scrutiny? Of what price freedom of association? Of what price probable cause? This is an abomination, just as it is in the UK and elsewhere.
This is Chicago.... Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg's book on liberty focused on its brutality, discrimination, its perjury. Now it wants to watch us all, the good, the bad, the ugly, as we try and live life or visit.
Those what would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither-- Franklin
Journalism is a well known practice, but communications is much tougher.
The maximal information (says Jeremy Campbell in "Grammatical Man", a guide to entropy in information systems) is conferred when the speaker knows the most of the context of the listener.
I agree with that whole heartedly. This means that you have to know your target audience to be most effective, not necessarily the subject matter-- although it certainly has to help.
First, imagine that in a state, we'll call it T, that is time that is current, as in now, from the observer's viewpoint.
If matter can neither be created or destroyed, multiple instances of matter (e.g. energy, too, as one is the other) are not possible at T. Conservation is destroyed. Multiverses are inconsistent with this.
Kirkhoff's laws have to do with observations of states of electrical junctions; what goes in must come out, as observed at T. As visaged as a representative of conservation of electron movement, it also applies as an example of coherency as it applies to a single instance. Former instances had other states, as will future instances of the measurement at the junction at T.
Multiiple instances of energy/mass spawned in to or from a multiverse means that the basic nature of matter is not what we know. Imagine bringing multiple concurrent realities into realtime. If this has been done, we have no means to observe it so far, and these additional instances might be irrelevant as they may be real, but not realizable. I like that it's been fun to use quantum math to try to explain certain observations and this doesn't mean I don't believe the math behind it. Rather, multiverses, no matter the convenience of having theorems that seem to imply them, are conjecture until you can get past Heisenberg and find out where the cats actually are (as in Shrodinger). Without this observations, it's just seemingly clever explanation that contradicts direct observation. Call it application of existentialism over the conjecture of theorem. Denial? Perhaps! Skepticism-- absolutely.
The conservation of matter might mean that there are multiple manifestations, e.g. a multi-state of matter. In this unlikely scenario, matter is many things (energy, too) at once, and has been and always will be until it's stopped somehow. Re-entrance into the past becomes the future, as it changes the outcome of the present. In other words, the basis of reality, once altered, must be done in the future. It's a loop that may destroy or remove the instance, in a way, like nulling it. Imagine two phases 180 degrees from each other. They cancel each other out, when summed. Yet the energy/mass of the state is very high, and equally, very low, within the dimension and at the time measured. Conjecture....this is. What would remain in this conjecture is what we have as our reality.
If something changes in the past, then the past becomes the future. Time can be nonlinear (viz gravity and what it does), but it marches on. Observance of time, given its stretches, is what we measure the age of our perceived universe, and other both terrestrial and extraterrestrial objects. Red shift tells us how far away the stars are, as an example.
Dirac, Shrodinger, Heisenberg, Einstein, and many other physicists have tried to prove the uncertainty (and hence the superfluity of states) you describe.
The multiverse interpretation still battles with conservation of matter and energy, Kirkoff's law, and a raft of other problems. This heterodyning of the universe's time coefficient is impossible to swallow for me. I don't have to see the universe as a straight line. I do however, have to defy probability and defer to the actual. In a multiverse, probable pasts can exist. I don't buy that. Probable futures, yes, but there is but one which will emerge, no matter the number of observers or observations or where they observe from. It will be historic.
Is my time, traveling in a fast aircraft, different from the time on the ground of mother Earth? Yes. Is the fact that there is a variance proof of the observation of multiple times proof of multiple universes? No. For both, history is static. It was.
Sure. John Calvin's in charge. Fate is everything. And this chamber has a slug in it, or does it?
And say, in a Heisinger way: if the many many possible worlds aren't available to us, then by our observations, there is only one state that evolves strictly from the present.
The past is 'in concrete'. So far, no evidence that we can change it, otherwise it wouldn't be history or the past.
We can change, and do, the present, and cannot so far leap very far into the future (thus altering the time coefficient).
At the quantum level, so are things at the macro or universal level; it's the same number with significant digits or places to the right of the decimal point. You can observe the big (universe) picture, or the micro/femto/whatever particle you want level. They are the same, and one has the rules of the other; it's the observation point that's amusing.
The bottom line: should multiverses exist, we can't get to them, and they are therefore irrelevant and meaningless and more strangely, matter created and energy expended evolved from ether, which makes no sense to me. So many basic laws of physics are violated to explain multiverses that I can't accept the concept until these are rectified. Simple conservation of matter/energy prohibits this multi-state set of pseudo-universes.
These guys can't even keep a print version going. Wonder why? It's ok to ignore blogs where the author is both 1) clueless and 2) probably never compiled a kernel in his entire life. Nothing to see here.
Wrong question, wrong answer. Microsoft is slowly hanging themselves. Let Apple be Apple. If people like MacOS, so much the better. Or not.
Bankruptcy judges and trustees have carte blanche to deal with creditors, and limit the effects of ongoing litigation. On Monday, everything changes in front of Judge Kimball, who will put the suit into stasis, and give at least a 60 day cooling off period to everything.
It might turn into a Chapter 7 filing afterwards, and SCO might be forced to liquidate. This is unlikely, however. In the interim, they'll try to convince a judge or referee that they have IP assets that need protecting, along with their agreements with various companies, and will produce a lot of smoke in their quest to simply survive.
Much attorneys fees will be spent by many companies. Much continued incivility and plain poo will continue to be the hallmark of SCO's perhaps brief existence. Like others, they don't quit until they're just dead. Don't look for much come-uppance. This ends badly, just as it began badly.
No. The 'salvation' attitude at Microsoft will continue. They can do no wrong, and will defend each legal claim until exhausted (and have the money to do it, too). Their success is an accident of history, boorishness, and illegal behavior, as documented through hundreds of judgments. There's a nugget of good work done here and there, but you won't change their ego, their testosterone-driven hubris. It's silly to try. Step aside, let the train go through, and continue on. Let Gates retire, the sooner, the better. Mundie adds little.
The nice thing about dictatorship is that eventually, the dictators either retire or pass on, leaving lesser leaders in their place. These lesser leaders inevitably fail.
see http://www.bangkokpost.com/Database/05Sep2007_data 006.php
Then note how much non-news this really is. A bunch of local yokels got a bit enamored with themselves.
Nothing to see here. Move along and smear somone else.
Worse is time incoherency or noise that malforms the data long transit. Imagine the as8k lskcc; fifif88*&&2/213k djc
There's a problem with semantics and terminology, depending whether you're a marketing person or the one that has to make things work. It's a typical problem.
Containers, sandboxes, and the like are operating system resources virtualization. Some have a greater degree of apparent instance autonomy than others.
Paravirtualized systems link a paravirtualized host OS with subsequent guest instances.
Direct translating systems are actually microkernels, sometimes loaded after a host OS instance that's replaced by the hypervisor or augments it (ESX is like the former).
Presentation virtualization is just remote access to an application or OS instance with a fancy name.
In the oil pipelines, copper was used; not much chance for explosion danger given low voltage. However, most of it was buried along side or in the same trench. In sewers, the explosion danger's high (methane), so they've cured the problems by running light inside fiber bundles.
It's dark fiber until it's lit. Putting cables into pipes has been around for 20+ years. Williams did it in natural gas pipes (and farmers sued them when they repurposed their easements illegally).
What this is, is a magnet for silly replies. Welcome to Monday morning.
Xen is a checkmark for Citrix; remember that terminal services competes with all that Citrix tries to do.
Competition is fun.
We disagree: containers, sandboxes, and other single-OS-instance schemes are app VM; they don't reinstantiate the host OS. They may virtualize by re-instantiation many OS resources, multiple concurrent settings/processes/services/etc, but there's one OS, not multiple OS instances.
I would agree that Microsoft is VMWare's biggest competitor. Big guns. Connectix stuff is well matured and reincarnated, and Microsoft Systems Center VMM might be more than its other disconnected dirt at some point.
But your knowledge of Xen will be changed even now, if you go to their website, look at XenEnterprise V4, and get to understand how their paravirtualization components have been changed. You don't see Xen in data centers.....yet. But like VMWare, Xen's used in a lot of labs, developer pits, skunk works, underneath Virtual Iron, and so on. Presentation virtualization is a big reason why Citrix bought Xen-- there's going to be a fierce war over sending just presentation data as pipes get clogged with too many thick clients-- browser apps and multimedia that chews up wire space.
I'm not so sure about Virtuozzo; its mgmt components are ok.
Microsoft's VS seems to give a comfort level to homogeneous Microsoft 'houses'. Yet we've also seen it run Fedora seamlessly....although you can't get reasonable instrumentation without going to other stuff.
VMWare is nice, sexy, red, lipstick, and costs a fortune.
Yet Xen, while far better than early releases (ugly), seems to peak many interests in our web racks... for cost. Slick, it is not. But Citrix specializes in 'slick' and so we expect there to be interesting changes.
Unless you don't use Windows at all (and I'm not saying anyone does), the Microsoft VS will migrate onto Xen soon, too. Who'll win the race? Performance, price, reliability, in reverse order.
Microsoft's VS is the old Connectix stuff. It's ok, and changes when a new hypervisor becomes part of Windows Server 2008. They tend to focus on servers, because their heads are up in their behinds about using mulitple desktop OSes-- anything else but theirs.
Virtuozzo isn't a server VM, it's an app VM.
VMWare and Xen are a bit different. VMWare has lots of depth and maturity. Xen has nearly similar compatibility but has fewer API sets to work with it. Xen's app hosting capabililities are more astute and highly competitive with Microsoft's SoftGrid and Citrix's remote apps. That's why Citrix bought them.
Virtuozzo has roots in site hosting, and it's maturity with Apache also extends to OpenVZ.
Let's talk enemies:
Sun has x686 Solaris ports, and IBM's still heavily invested in Inel and AMD hardware, as well as their own Power and Cell CPUs. and SUSE (Microsoft's new best friend) has ports on IBM iron, ranging from tiny stuff up to S390) which I'm sure Sun is jealous of.
IBM, now that SCOx has essentially been wiped from the screen, wants more business, and they don't make that much from Windows stuff. They sell IRON and SERVICES. They stopped operating systems at OS/2 and decided to let others do it. Fine.
IBM has service revenues and gets into a lot of NOCs. They like Linux, 'cause it's all value (read $$) add. They understand iron, they understand services.
The multi-core UltraSparcs are an engineering marvel.... and they're selling like old mortgage debt on Wall Street right now. That silly Linux stuff is pumping it out. Call it a toy if you want, but a bullet is a bullet and if you don't need howitzers, bullets are fine. Add in VMWare, Xen, or whatever, and you have a loaded gun with several rounds in it. That's where servers are going right now: virtual.... and Solaris containers aren't so wonderful.
Microsoft is getting bitten at the ankles by just about everyone. Let's count the ways: uh oh, SCOx will soon run out of money and will stop biting the ankles of IBM and Novell. Pity. Adobe wants to bring an office suite to market. Google hires Sun's StarOffice to be in their bundle. Several companies, weakly but in a virgin kind of way, start selling desktop Linux of various flavors. Microsoft co-opts Ubuntu and makes a slave of Xandros. How silly.
Add to the cake Steve Jobs stealing thunder wherever he can seed clouds. Salt it up with rotten DRM in Vista, and an underwhelming adoption when your server sales are cannibalized by your own inability to ship Windows 2008/Longhorn server.
As Vonnegut might say, Microsoft is feeling the breeze that occurs when the excrement hits the airconditioning. Schwartz is still upwind of that.