Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 7th Nov 2007 22:50 UTC
Red Hat Red Hat announced Nov. 7 the availability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.1, with integrated virtualization. In claims that Red Hat representatives were well aware are extremely broad reaching, they said the new release will provides the most compelling platform for customers and software developers ever, with its industry-leading virtualization capabilities complementing Red Hat's newly announced Linux Automation strategy. It offers the industry's broadest deployment ecosystem, covering stand-alone systems, virtualized systems, appliances and Web-scale 'cloud' computing environments.
Order by: Score:
Good for Linux
by sultanqasim on Thu 8th Nov 2007 01:16 UTC
sultanqasim
Member since:
2006-10-28

Linux is an excellent server OS and this just makes it better. The problem is that it still isn't something fresh and revolutionary for UNIX switchers - it's still just a better UNIX. Linux needs some revolutionary, original and useful features to set it apart from the competition. Look at Mac OS X Server. It is UNIX based but adds some great apple features and makes it super easy to give it an edge in it's intended market (small-medium businesses). So essentially, great for linux but it still need some super features so it can stand out and be the best.

Edited 2007-11-08 01:21

Reply Score: 1

RE: Good for Linux
by butters on Thu 8th Nov 2007 04:32 UTC in reply to "Good for Linux"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

How much is Jobs charging for a keynote appearance these days? "Just click here, and BOOM!, virtual machine. Now let's make three more: Boom, Boom, Boom. And we're done."

Reply Score: 2

RE: Good for Linux
by porcel on Thu 8th Nov 2007 14:49 UTC in reply to "Good for Linux"
porcel Member since:
2006-01-28

Well, Linux is very mature and performs great. Last time the same thing could not be said of OSX as a server platform. The database performance was horrendous.

I don't find there is anything really missing in the current Linux server offerings.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Good for Linux
by gilboa on Thu 8th Nov 2007 17:14 UTC in reply to "Good for Linux"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

You do understand that in the server/workstation world, you don't need revolutions, far from it. You need stability, low purchase and maintenance costs rock-solid security. Virtualization is also beginning to be a base-line requirement.

Being a better Unix or Windows 2K3 is a -big- deal.
Having rock solid virtualization working out of the box, (with or w/o good looking UI) is a -big- deal.

You might argue that Linux desktop is missing a killer feature... but RedHat's lunch is enterprise servers and desktops - a far cry from your desktop.

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Good for Linux
by Runesabre on Thu 8th Nov 2007 19:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Good for Linux"
Runesabre Member since:
2006-08-14

I totally agree; I don't need or even want a revolution going on in my server rack. That's why I've shied away from Linux distros that have to appeal to the bleeding-edge desktop crowd.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Good for Linux
by Damind on Thu 8th Nov 2007 20:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good for Linux"
Damind Member since:
2006-06-08

I do think Linux is really solid. I was just saying to a co-worker that Linux needs that must have app or feature to make it really appeal to guys spending the money. It needs something like how email was/is for/to the internet.

Reply Score: 1

I wonder if they fixed the mouse bug
by jrincayc on Thu 8th Nov 2007 03:38 UTC
jrincayc
Member since:
2007-07-24

Last time I checked windows and graphical linux were very difficult to use with virt-manager. The mouse on the screen and the mouse in the VM don't match up, so hitting buttons was very difficult. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=242676

Reply Score: 1

sultanqasim Member since:
2006-10-28

I am aware of this problem. It isn't really a bug, it's a missing feature. First of all, both the host and the guest OS are doing mouse tracking things (sensitivity and speed dampening etc.) and second, there is not code to make the mouse disappear in the host when the guest is in use. It will take a bit of lower level coding to fix these problems but my point is that it isn't a mistake on the dev's part.

*I think there is some code out to do these things but they haven't been incorporated as of 5.0 (haven't tried 5.1)

Reply Score: 1

zdzichu Member since:
2006-11-07

Shouldn't guest X just work in touchscreen/tablet mode? Host would just say "mouse is at X,Y" instead of "mouse moved X mixels up".

Reply Score: 1

laclasse Member since:
2007-01-03

This has been fixed. Now upon clicking in the guest operating system, the pointer of the host will disappear, only activating the guest pointer, with a pop up telling you to use Ctrl + Alt to release the host pointer.

Reply Score: 2

RH Announce
by superman on Thu 8th Nov 2007 07:11 UTC
superman
Member since:
2006-08-01

Linux Automation. Any application, anywhere, anytime :
http://www.press.redhat.com/2007/11/07/linux-automation-any-applica...

RHEL 5.1 :
http://www.redhat.com/about/news/prarchive/2007/virtualization.html

Linux Available On Demand on Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud :
http://www.redhat.com/about/news/prarchive/2007/amazon.html

Appliance Platform
http://www.redhat.com/about/news/prarchive/2007/appliance_platform....


All made in november 7.

Edited 2007-11-08 07:12

Reply Score: 5

Virtualisation.....
by segedunum on Thu 8th Nov 2007 12:58 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

I doubt whether I'll use the virtualisation stuff in Red Hat until KVM matures. The tools are still behind VMware's, Xen has a habit of screwing up networking so you can't run VMware and Xen side-by-side (arghhhh, Xen's custom kernels!), I don't have hardware that supports running of Windows yet and I have some pre-built VMware machines that I still have to use.

All in all, I'm simply non-plused by built-in virtualisation in both the major distributions because I'm waiting for something that does it properly.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Virtualisation.....
by porcel on Thu 8th Nov 2007 14:47 UTC in reply to "Virtualisation....."
porcel Member since:
2006-01-28

Define properly.

It seems to work pretty well for lots of people already and with more virtualization-aware processors things can only get better.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Virtualisation.....
by segedunum on Thu 8th Nov 2007 15:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Virtualisation....."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Define properly.

It can work without using special hardware for Windows, better management tools, a Xen kernel can run without borking the networking for everyone and I want to run a Linux distro without having a special kernel. That matters most of all.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Virtualisation.....
by gilboa on Thu 8th Nov 2007 17:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Virtualisation....."
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

I may be wrong here, but AFAICS, RHEL/Xen was designed to do one thing, and do it well:
Run multiple sand boxed copies of RHEL under a single RHEL host.

Running Windows 2K3 using Xen may work (using VT/SVN-enabled cores) but it's not RedHat's target audience.

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Virtualisation.....
by SEJeff on Thu 8th Nov 2007 18:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Virtualisation....."
SEJeff Member since:
2005-11-05

Not quite... When Novell touted how badass SLES's virtualization features were, it was a very striped down Xen 3.0.x that only ran virtualized SLES. At that time, Redhat said simply that Xen wasn't ready for primetime and needed more work. They were right.

Redhat's virtualization is certainly a way for them to help you upgrade to RHEL5, but that isn't all it is for. Most Redhat customers are also Microsoft customers so it wouldn't make sense for windows to work very well under RHEL's Xen. Virtualization makes it much easier to migrate from one platform to another.

The US govt uses RHEL in places that isolation is a serious concern (google Information Assurance) and SELinux + Xen make a great solution.


That being said, you certainly have a good point. RHEL is their bread & butter after all.

Reply Score: 2