Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 06:44 UTC
Windows Microsoft will support customers who chose to run Linux with Microsoft's Virtual Server 2005 R2, software for running multiple operating systems on one machine.
Order by: Score:
Oops
by chekr on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 06:59 UTC
chekr
Member since:
2005-11-05

I bet Microsoft regret ever funding Cambridge for the Xen project in the first place. I wonder where they are going with this though...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Oops
by nii_ on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 07:12 UTC in reply to "Oops"
nii_ Member since:
2005-07-11

Cambridge started the research before Microsoft's involvement.

I think this Hypervisor is similar to the way that MS leveraged an OS below all applications / software / games / ... that ran on x86 based PCs.

Earlier in the life of the PC, games and other software was capable of writing directly to hardware, but Microsoft made it easier for everyone to write applications by putting a virtual layer in between the hardware, the HAL and the APIs on top of that - in the case of games, DirectX etc. In doing so they also gained the dependence of everyone on their OS.

Again, there is some competition allowing a hypervisor to be run between the conventional PC OSs and the Hardware. I think Microsoft will like everything again to run on their hypervisor no matter what OS or software it is, including Linux, then hopefully gain dependence on the MS hypervisor.

I am wondering about this however. If microsoft are capable of getting all OSs to be dependent on the MS hypervisor.
I think this would only be possible if they got PC distributers to have the MS hypervisor pre-installed and only capable of running their hypervisor. Just a thought of course.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Oops
by bouh on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 07:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Oops"
bouh Member since:
2005-10-27

Microsoft made it easier for everyone to write applications by putting a virtual layer in between the hardware, the HAL and the APIs on top of that

I am not so confident that you really knows what you are talking about. Isn't a HAL: Hardware Abstraction Layer, is it the virtual layer you talking about? Where is the virtual layer in DirectX?

Edited 2006-04-03 07:22

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Oops
by Tom K on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 08:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Oops"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

DirectX IS the "virtual layer". With DirectX, the game does not have to talk directly to the hardware. In the case of 3D rendering with DirectX, the game sends instructions to DirectX, which get send to the DX portion of your graphics card's driver, which then sends the raw low-level data + instructions in whatever proprietary format your particular 3D hardware makes use of.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Oops
by bouh on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 08:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Oops"
bouh Member since:
2005-10-27

DirectX IS the "virtual layer". With DirectX, the game does not have to talk directly to the hardware. In the case of 3D rendering with DirectX, the game sends instructions to DirectX, which get send to the DX portion of your graphics card's driver, which then sends the raw low-level data + instructions in whatever proprietary format your particular 3D hardware makes use of.

What you are discribing here is the purpose of the driver it self: translate into hardware instructions the drawing instructions.

What he ment was about "virtualization" that he was accidentally(?) mixing with abstraction. It will never be in the scope of DirectX (nor OpenGL) to be virtual, but sure they provide abstraction to hardware. Hence, in my opinion, the post was out of scope. Therefore I was asking the author of the comment if he ment something else...

Edited 2006-04-03 09:01

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Oops
by firl on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 14:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Oops"
firl Member since:
2006-03-16

The direct just means it gives you access to the hardware in a different method in a controled environment where the OS still has control, where as old games relied on asm, and coding the OH themselves.

This forced people to program well, instead they allow DirectX to be their overhead.

With that said.
I use OpenGL for my programming

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Oops
by Tom K on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 15:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Oops"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

DirectX and OpenGL serve the same purpose -- to make the programmer's job easier, and to better leverage the hardware of the user without specifically coding for it.

I see nothing wrong with the bit of DirectX overhead given the benefit of using a game-industry standard abstraction layer.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Oops
by de_wizze on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 14:19 UTC in reply to "Oops"
de_wizze Member since:
2005-10-31

yeah but what prevents them from just using xen technology?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Oops
by Mark Williamson on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 15:55 UTC in reply to "Oops"
Mark Williamson Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, Xen did help identify the major pros / cons of paravirtualising Linux / Windows on x86 *and* how to solve the problems involved. So although it's now a competitor to MS, it will have helped them map out how to write their own hypervisor product in the most optimal possible way without having to go through the design / prototyping process completely from scratch. Of course the code can't be shared directly, just the design concepts.

MS Research is a different entity to the MS mothership, so it's not the case that they would have funded it *purely* commercial reasons. But if you consider that they've probably got the market inertia to take a substantial chunk out of VMware / Xen's market when they release the Vista hypervisor, using Xen as a design / marketplace guinea pig mightn't be a bad idea overall ;-)

Reply Score: 2

So..
by Nelson on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 07:10 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

Well it's virtualization software so it's a given that "multiple operating systems" will be supported..

Reply Score: 3

Unstable
by Axentrix on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 07:14 UTC
Axentrix
Member since:
2005-12-16

Who would possibly want an unstable, self-updating (and self-rebooting, like 2003server), OS in the bottom of the virtual servers?

Vmware ESX server is a VERY good, and stable, product, and i don't think microsoft can beat it.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Unstable
by Tom K on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 08:37 UTC in reply to "Unstable"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

> Who would possibly want an unstable, self-updating (and self-rebooting, like 2003server)

Sounds like you had bad hardware.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Unstable
by glarepate on Wed 5th Apr 2006 00:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Unstable"
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

Sounds like you had bad hardware.

I have had very good results running W2k3 as well. Especially compared to W2k and XP. But if he has had good luck running ESX on the same hardware then it's not a hardware issue per se. Maybe a hardware support issue, more likely the activities he performs on the OS lead to instability. I always crash FreeBSD even though it's known for stability. I have fewer problems on 'Doze and fewest on Linux. YMMV

Reply Score: 1

RE: Unstable
by ronaldst on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 15:39 UTC in reply to "Unstable"
ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

@Axentrix

Vmware ESX server is a VERY good, and stable, product, and i don't think microsoft can beat it.

All of Microsoft's competitors said that at one point.

:D

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Unstable
by mlb2000 on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 20:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Unstable"
mlb2000 Member since:
2005-09-07

Citrix still get to say it.

VMware ESX is in a league of it's own on Intel kit, and could stay that way for a long time.

Reply Score: 1

:-)
by bouh on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 07:25 UTC
bouh
Member since:
2005-10-27

What I find funny here, is that Microsoft has played all the cards to try to sell it's Virtual Servers, even the:

"You could run your fav linux on it"

This begining 2006 it is amazing to see how Microsoft is pushing back all limits!

Edited 2006-04-03 07:26

Reply Score: 5

Benefits?
by hhcv on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 07:32 UTC
hhcv
Member since:
2005-11-12

Running Linux is an "active" choice for me.. if it had no other benfits over windows I would never have installed it. For me, this is stability, and security. If I run linux on a windows base, I am basically giving this all away... I'd be sitting there waiting for the host OS to reboot, and get infected... now what are those benefits?

Reply Score: 5

No no no no NO
by raver31 on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 07:55 UTC
raver31
Member since:
2005-07-06

You have got it all wrong...

You run Linux as the primary OS and then run Windows under virtualisation. Not the other way around.

Hence, if you happen to get malware, and Windows falls over, just restart the virtualisation software again, the underlying system will still be 100%.

And, Microsoft is giving the server version away for free ? So what ? VMWare did that weeks ago. And VMWare Server is an infinate amount better than MS Virtual Server, both in performance and stability, and the amount of native platforms it runs on.

I might be a Linux advocate, but, just because they say it is "free", does not mean it is "free" and I for one, do not want it.

Edited 2006-04-03 07:57

Reply Score: 5

RE: No no no no NO
by Babi Asu on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 09:35 UTC in reply to "No no no no NO"
Babi Asu Member since:
2006-02-11

You have got it all wrong...

You run Linux as the primary OS and then run Windows under virtualisation. Not the other way around.

Hence, if you happen to get malware, and Windows falls over, just restart the virtualisation software again, the underlying system will still be 100%.

And, Microsoft is giving the server version away for free ? So what ? VMWare did that weeks ago. And VMWare Server is an infinate amount better than MS Virtual Server, both in performance and stability, and the amount of native platforms it runs on.

I might be a Linux advocate, but, just because they say it is "free", does not mean it is "free" and I for one, do not want it.


In a community full with Linuces zealotes, a bias comment like above surely will get high score.

1. It is Microsoft who said that, so of course their offering is Windows as host. Is there MS Virtual PC for linux? Because there isn't, so it's not possible to use Linux as primary os with MS VirtualPC.
2. The same argument also can be used. If the linux get hacked and falls over, just restart the linux virtual box.
3. Backup your word "VMWare Server is an infinite amount better than MS Virtual Server" with data, not with your illogical sense. Don't tell me you get "infinite" from the price factor (price comparison $199:$0 = infinite).
4. I'm not MS advocate, I've just switched to OSX. Free is not always good, especially if you must pay with your precious time.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: No no no no NO
by chavv on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 09:58 UTC in reply to "RE: No no no no NO"
chavv Member since:
2005-07-06

Fact is - VMWare is better than MSVirtual PC
USB support is way better, ability to use Linux as host (although there is no problem to use Win as host and run Linux guests ;) )
Even the experimental 3D in vmware is better... a friend of mine used it to play lineage ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: No no no no NO
by bouh on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 10:00 UTC in reply to "RE: No no no no NO"
bouh Member since:
2005-10-27

Well, though he is a linux advocate, I think you should read differently his comments, when he said:

if you happen to get malware, and Windows falls over, just restart the virtualisation software again, the underlying system will still be 100% he is just putting under the light two fact:
1. virtual server are usefull for robustness
2. because windows is window (90-95% market share, etc) it get's a lot of malware, so using linux below is a nice idea, since it's less targetted by malwares

When you say:
Don't tell me you get "infinite" from the price factor (price comparison $199:$0 = infinite)
as you probably know, from a corporate point of view, cost is usally out weighted by garanties and performance when it comes to chosing a software. Ok, I admit he was putting it abruptly.

When you say:
Free is not always good, especially if you must pay with your precious time.
I do pay a lot of my precious time just to make my Debian run. It is true. I am not debating here, and I will never. That is what linux desktop is in my opinion: a perpetual, progressive and incomplete machine that requires your attention. But I am a software engineer, linux has 2 advantages for me: It can be debugged, tortured, mesured, watched easily, and it teaches me a lot all the time. It's a considerable gain.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: No no no no NO
by Ookaze on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 13:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No no no no NO"
Ookaze Member since:
2005-11-14

he is just putting under the light two fact:
1. virtual server are usefull for robustness
2. because windows is window (90-95% market share, etc) it get's a lot of malware, so using linux below is a nice idea, since it's less targetted by malwares


Your two facts are wrong to me. I mean, they are not facts, just inductions.
Because virtual server is not useful for robustness, only for reliability. You can put any number of Windows server on your virtual server, they won't be more robust.
But the overall system will be more reliable.
As for your BS about market share, Apache versus IIS proved a long time ago that it was wrong : the only fact is that Windows is the easiest OS to put malware on.

as you probably know, from a corporate point of view, cost is usally out weighted by garanties and performance when it comes to chosing a software. Ok, I admit he was putting it abruptly

To some degree. And then again, VMware has a free version too. I'm also amazed at the number of people that still talk about "garanties and performance" in a Windows environment. 2 years of IT was enough for me to realise that Windows and MS could provide neither.

Free is not always good, especially if you must pay with your precious time.
I do pay a lot of my precious time just to make my Debian run. It is true. I am not debating here, and I will never. That is what linux desktop is in my opinion: a perpetual, progressive and incomplete machine that requires your attention. But I am a software engineer, linux has 2 advantages for me: It can be debugged, tortured, mesured, watched easily, and it teaches me a lot all the time. It's a considerable gain.


Your opinion is just skewed because your only experience with Linux seems to be as a tinkerer with it.
What you don't understand is that Linux is what you makes it, that's what makes it so powerful.
What I don't understand is why do you accept what people force on you without thinking ?
Because, actually, you don't "pay" with your precious time to make your Debian run. You put time on your Linux because you love to do it, perhaps you love to be on the bleeding edge, so that's not a pay, that's a gain. Because once you have your setup running, it won't take any time from you.
Someone that don't want to tinker with its desktop won't put any time on it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: No no no no NO
by bouh on Tue 4th Apr 2006 08:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: No no no no NO"
bouh Member since:
2005-10-27

hum. I should have seen your reply sooner. Sorry.

1. I do admit there is a vocabulary point between robustness/reliability.

2. "Windows is the easiest OS to put malware on"
And with a comment like this you try to demonstrate I am a tinkerer? Please.

3. Yes guaranties are an important point when it comes to make a choice in a product. Which company are you from? And guaranties have nothing to do with the software itself but with its licence. I think you did not get my point here.

4. Because once you have your setup running, it won't take any time from you.
Well that's the thing. Linux is evolving and it IS difficult to have a setup fully runing for use on a desktop and laptop.

I mean USING linux. I have obviously been all the contrary of what you have been: because for the past 3 year I have tried to install RedHat, Debian on many desktop/laptop. If you had have my experience in this domain you would suddenly realize that installing linux to have a complete working laptop (ACPI, sleeping/suspend, wireless) without confilict (integrated sound card, integrated modem, etc, we usually find esoteric hardware on laptop) DO require A LOT OF YOUR TIME, that's why my previous comment has been moded up, not yours. But you have obously not been exploring linux to all its extends. So from your point of view it becomes obsious that I am a tinkerer.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: No no no no NO
by bailey86 on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 14:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No no no no NO"
bailey86 Member since:
2005-10-14

>>>2. because windows is window (90-95% market share, etc) it get's a lot of malware, so using linux below is a nice idea, since it's less targetted by malwares

umm... this is OS news not the returns queue at PC World.

Posting a comment like that reduces your credibility to about zero.

i suggest you carry out some research into just why MS products are so vulnerable and unix one's aren't and you'll find it has nothing to do with market share.

even if it did - there are far, far more unix servers on the internet than MS ones so your point is nonsense anyway.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: No no no no NO
by sappyvcv on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 15:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: No no no no NO"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Nothing?

Now that's a ballsy claim.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: No no no no NO
by bouh on Tue 4th Apr 2006 09:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: No no no no NO"
bouh Member since:
2005-10-27

suggest you carry out some research into just why MS products are so vulnerable and unix one's aren't and you'll find it has nothing to do with market share.

What I suggest to you is that you read threads from the begining. This was about the fact that Windows gets malware, which is true. And is mostly due to the vast majority of desktop being windows installed making it a defacto standard for malware. Now, those malware happen to also affect window servers. This was the point of the 1st post of this thread that I was defending.

I am not saying that it is the only issue about windows servers nor am I recusing your arguments. But sentences like:

Posting a comment like that reduces your credibility to about zero

have no value for anyone and make people angry while they are totally unjustified. Save your time by reading better.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: No no no no NO
by dylansmrjones on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 13:27 UTC in reply to "RE: No no no no NO"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Division by Zero do not give "infinite".

Division by a number infinitely close to zero gives infinite.

Division by zero gives a number outside the range from -∞ to ∞

That's impossible according to our definition of infinitym and therefore division by zero gives "Error".

edit: BLAAAH.... it just won't get the infinite symbols right...

Edited 2006-04-03 13:31

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: No no no no NO
by raver31 on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 18:52 UTC in reply to "RE: No no no no NO"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

The same argument also can be used. If the linux get hacked and falls over, just restart the linux virtual box. Not the same at all. If Windows is the HOST and Windows picks up malware, it will take out the Linux virtualisation too. This will not happen the other way around.

Backup your word "VMWare Server is an infinite amount better than MS Virtual Server" with data, not with your illogical sense. Don't tell me you get "infinite" from the price factor (price comparison $199:$0 = infinite). I was talking about my PERCEIVED value of VMWare over Microsoft Virtual Server. Where did you get the $199 from ?
Microsoft Virtual Server is worthless to me, as I will not run Windows natively.
I'm not MS advocate, I've just switched to OSX. Free is not always good, especially if you must pay with your precious time. Pay with my precious time ? Nope. I would spend roughly the same amount of time to get Linux set up than other OS's..... But when I do... I can leave it like that, knowing it will be in exactly the same state I left it....

Reply Score: 2

Problems for Microsoft
by KenJackson on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 11:07 UTC
KenJackson
Member since:
2005-07-18

"We’ve made a long-term commitment to make sure that non-Windows operating systems can be run in a supported manner, both on top of Virtual Server and our future virtualization products," said Zane Adam, director of Windows Server product marketing, in a statement.

I see problems for Microsoft here. There will likely be Windows people who have never used Linux who take a shot at running Linux in a virtual server. These will include some very skillful Windows administrators. But any virtualization scheme requires expertise in both OSes.

So when they run into the inevitable startup problems and can't figure it out, many will contact Microsoft. After all, Microsoft made a long-term commitment to make sure that non-Windows operating systems can be run in a supported manner. That's a huge extra tech support burden that they won't be able to escape.

Note that the converse is not nearly as significant a problem because (I think) most Linux Administrators have experience in Windows.

Also note that some of those who install Linux for the first time may find that they like it.

Reply Score: 2

Virtual PC
by Obram on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 12:00 UTC
Obram
Member since:
2005-11-10

And what about Virtual PC product? Is it dead?

Reply Score: 1

Meta-hypervisor?
by Brendan on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 12:09 UTC
Brendan
Member since:
2005-11-16

With all these different hypervisors, wouldn't it be nice if you could run several hypervisors on the same machine? I want a "meta-hypervisor" running multiple hypervisors running multiple OSs running multiple applications (with multi-threading).

Wouldn't portable software running on an OS that doesn't crash make more sense? I'm wondering if the need for virtualization represents some form of failure in the IT industry...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Meta-hypervisor?
by Almindor on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 13:04 UTC in reply to "Meta-hypervisor?"
Almindor Member since:
2006-01-16

Good point. Instead of nice standard APIs which are cross platform and non-bloated (SDL comes to mind, openGL too), people jump the "virtualization" bandwagon and "java" style bloat.

As for applications I don't see the reason for virtualization. You might argue that making software cross-platform is difficult but only so if you don't do it from the start, and I'm saying this from experience.

Edited 2006-04-03 13:05

Reply Score: 1

i have
by present_arms on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 14:05 UTC
present_arms
Member since:
2005-07-09

2 identical PCs (amd Athlon 2600+'s) one with windows xp pro sp2, and one with pclinuxos... vmware on both, both running xp pro, funny that vmware runs slightly faster on the nix box. i've even swapped over hd's to make sure bios settings had no effect (no issues with windows as hardware is exactly the same) and still same results. oh and b4 ppl start saying windows possibly had more software running in the background, this was a fresh install, only the drivers for video, sound etc were loaded, pclos installed a shed load ;)

just my 2c.

must learn to proof read

Edited 2006-04-03 14:07

Reply Score: 4

RE: i have
by Celerate on Mon 3rd Apr 2006 23:42 UTC in reply to "i have"
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

While working with C++, I've found that file input and output in Windows goes slower than in Linux, when someone had asked about this in one of the mailing lists I'm in (I believe it was the Qt-Interest list) others agreed that they noticed something very similar. Virtualization software relies heavily on the speed of file input and output for the file system and swap that makes up for the shortage of ram.

Reply Score: 2