Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 16th Feb 2009 19:28 UTC, submitted by Rahul
Red Hat For years, Microsoft has insisted that open-source vendors acknowledge that its patent portfolio is a precursor to interoperability discussions. Monday, Microsoft shed that charade and announced an interoperability alliance with Red Hat for virtualization. Red Hat has long argued that patent discussions only cloud true interoperability, which is best managed through open source and open standards. Now it has got what it wanted; unlike the Novell-Microsoft agreements, there is no exclusionary patent deals or cross payments.
Order by: Score:
Comment by satan666
by satan666 on Mon 16th Feb 2009 20:48 UTC
satan666
Member since:
2008-04-18

So RedHat has shown the world that it is entirely possible to get interoperability without signing bogus patent deals. If Novell's guys feel stupid they have all the reasons in the world to feel so. Great move by RedHat. Congratulations! I would like to congratulate Novell too, for finally realizing how stupid they are.

Reply Score: 15

RE: Comment by satan666
by kragil on Mon 16th Feb 2009 21:03 UTC in reply to "Comment by satan666"
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

Seconded.

In Germany we would say "MS had to swallow a toad".

Hopefully there are a lot more toads in MS' future ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by satan666
by REM2000 on Mon 16th Feb 2009 21:59 UTC in reply to "Comment by satan666"
REM2000 Member since:
2006-07-25

I don't think novell feel that stupid, the deal with microsoft allowed them to share and build technology togeather, for example Microsoft's hyper-v supports suse out of the box.

Plus i do think that suse helped with persuading Microsoft to open up more, ok the deal is more restrictive than the red hat one, but moving to these new way of working for microsoft and open source has to be done in steps and the suse was a step.

Overall i don't think that anyone should feel stupid, Microsoft, SUSE or any of the linux ecosystem, we are getting closer to a more open world.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by satan666
by segedunum on Mon 16th Feb 2009 23:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by satan666"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't think novell feel that stupid, the deal with microsoft allowed them to share and build technology togeather, for example Microsoft's hyper-v supports suse out of the box.

Yes, but supporting Hyper-V doesn't do a whole lot for Novell, and they have had precious little support from Microsoft in running Windows on their virtualisation platform despite the claims.

Plus i do think that suse helped with persuading Microsoft to open up more.....

Microsoft makes deals to make money, and even more important than that, to protect their existing revenue streams from new threats like virtualising Windows on other platforms. Nothing more.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by satan666
by TBPrince on Tue 17th Feb 2009 11:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by satan666"
TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, but supporting Hyper-V doesn't do a whole lot for Novell, and they have had precious little support from Microsoft in running Windows on their virtualisation platform despite the claims.


That's not true. You guys judge things from a non-business point of view which is, in the end, usually wrong if you're not talking about your home PC.

I tell you something. My company will soon enter the virtualization market and we are a 100% MS shop. While supporting most Windows variants in our virtualized eco-system based on Hyper-V, we will also consider letting our users choose Linux.

Now, try a wild guess: which is the ONLY Linux variant we will support in our 100% MS eco-system?

Correct: THAT (optimized) one. Got any idea what Novell got from agreement with MS?

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: Comment by satan666
by segedunum on Tue 17th Feb 2009 14:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by satan666"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

That's not true. You guys judge things from a non-business point of view which is, in the end, usually wrong if you're not talking about your home PC.

The comments above are as about as unbusiness-like as one can possibly get. Microsoft opening up? Please........... You ring-fence your own products and revenue streams first, and that is exactly what Microsoft is doing. It's amazing how many Microsoft shops don't even understand Microsoft's own business model, but then, you exist only to sell their products secondary to your own survival. Good luck in the current climate ;-).

Under the terms of the deal Novell lets Microsoft sell Suse coupons and installations which exist surrounded by Windows Servers and need to work squarely in that environment. It will be supported for as long as Microsoft decides. It doesn't help Novell sell its virtualisation platform one iota, and in fact, it actively damages their business there. It's actually a part of the deal that these Suse servers need to exist in an AD domain.

I tell you something. My company will soon enter the virtualization market and we are a 100% MS shop. While supporting most Windows variants in our virtualized eco-system based on Hyper-V, we will also consider letting our users choose Linux.

This is where your understanding of the situation totally breaks down.

Those Linux servers will exist surrounded by Windows servers in a 100% controlled Microsoft environment. They will be surrounded by Active Directory domains that they will need to join as well as a lot of other Windows infrastructure that doesn't sit very well with any other system apart from Windows. Linux can be installed there, but it's not going to have a great time of things.

Now, try a wild guess: which is the ONLY Linux variant we will support in our 100% MS eco-system?

I wish you luck, but frankly, no one will care. You're a Microsoft shop. Those wanting Linux will use the virtualisation platform that works most naturally with it, and that's going to be paravirtualised through Xen, KVM or VMware. Guess what? You can run Windows well on all of those as well.

If you're trying to turn your virtualisation system into a heteregeneuous OS environment then I'm afraid you backed the wrong horse. It's only going to work where a Microsoft environment needs to do something with a Linux system at some point.

Correct: THAT (optimized) one. Got any idea what Novell got from agreement with MS?

What optimised one? You can't get more optimised than a paravirtualised Linux guest using KVM or Xen running on a Linux system, or on VMware that has also been running Windows longer than Hyper-V has. It's a tough sell.

Novell got themselves into a deal where they paid their number one competitor, Microsoft, to sell their own server products in the virtualisation product of their number one competitor, Microsoft, surrounded by the number one competitive product for them, Windows Server. Obviously, you know little about it.

Business sense? Ha.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Comment by satan666
by TBPrince on Tue 17th Feb 2009 15:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by satan666"
TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

What is really amazing is how you apply your wishes to business rules, thus bending the reality of business results to your wishes. So something doesn't make sense because... you don't like it ;-) For example:

Under the terms of the deal Novell lets Microsoft sell Suse coupons and installations which exist surrounded by Windows Servers and need to work squarely in that environment.

See? You don't like SUSE to be "surrounded by Windows Servers" so, as a whole, it doesn't make sense. True? Wrong. Classic example of business rules bending to you own taste or likes. And what's worst is you apply those rules to everyone in the market because "it cannot be different that this" in your own world.

Of course this is plain wrong. I could tell you hundreds of cases where customers might want (or don't care) to have SUSE surrounded by Window servers. But I'm sure you're smart enough to find out at least a couple of them yourself ;-) oh sorry: that reality doesn't exist...!

"It will be supported for as long as Microsoft decides."
So what? ;-) The most important thing you know what terms are.

"It doesn't help Novell sell its virtualisation platform one iota"
Again... so what? The thing here is not selling Novell virtualization platform. If we're talking about virtualizing SUSE, that means we already selected our platform... don't you think so?

And again, you're misinformed. Just to cite press release from MS:
"Microsoft will make these coupons available to joint customers who are interested in deploying virtualized Windows on SUSE Linux Enterprise Server, or virtualized SUSE Linux Enterprise Server on Windows."
So you can access benefits when you virtualize SUSE on Windows or Windows on SUSE.

"and in fact, it actively damages their business there."
Uh? You might seem to think people choose virtualization based on brands. It's a functional decision rather than a fashion one. And again, it's not a one way only as stated above. So customers might want to choose SUSE to virtualize Windows. How that manages to damage Novell is beyond me.

But I can tell you one real-world case: we didn't want to let Linux inside our eco-system but we decided to allow SUSE for selected customers with specific needs. I know Novell will contact us to tell us we're damaging their business... I'm sorry for them ;-)

Linux can be installed there, but it's not going to have a great time of things.

This explain attitude. You're fighting a war to evangelize people. We're (fortunately) not. Good luck when you take decisions on religious belief rather than business sense.

Those wanting Linux will use the virtualisation platform that works most naturally with it, and that's going to be paravirtualised through Xen, KVM or VMware.

That confirms that you have no idea what you're talking about. Do you want me to say that Xen or KVM or VMware are better than Hyper-V so you could fulfill your insecurities? Sure! Long live! Linux is better! ;-)

Guess what? You can run Windows well on all of those as well. If you're trying to turn your virtualisation system into a heteregeneuous OS environment then I'm afraid you backed the wrong horse.

Sure. Long live Linux! Better now? ;-)

It's only going to work where a Microsoft environment needs to do something with a Linux system at some point.

lol Sure. You have no clue. But hey: long live Linux! XEN is better! ;-)

What optimised one? You can't get more optimised than a paravirtualised Linux guest using KVM or Xen running on a Linux system, or on VMware that has also been running Windows longer than Hyper-V has.

Since you have no clue, you think that someone willing to use Linux will only choose to go that way. Because, of course, they will choose Linux because it's better than everything else. It's wrong but you don't care because you don't care about business senses, only religious belief.

The fact that customers happily running MS products might want to get a Linux server for a specific reason but still they want to stay MS for 99% of their business doesn't even cross your mind because hey... KVM is better! And if people want to do that, hey, they don't exist! lol it makes sense to me... hmm....

Obviously, you know little about it. Business sense? Ha.

lol Good luck for your business ;-) I'm glad we're not a customer of yours ;-) Not that your arguments aren't filled of real hard facts and business sense... of course... ;-)

It was fun. Thanks.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by satan666
by segedunum on Tue 17th Feb 2009 17:20 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by satan666"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

What is really amazing is how you apply your wishes to business rules

This is how Microsoft operates. They look at the endgame for their own products and revenue streams. They're not interested in making money from Windows under Red Hat or Suse within their virtualisation systems if it means that it exists in an environment without Windows and limits the revenue from selling further licenses for CALs, SQL Server, Exchange etc. That's the bottom line, and Microsoft has a substantial one as a result of this.

I can't say I blame Microsoft for this, in fact I even admire it, but it's amazing how others and even Microsoft's competitors just do not get this and never have.

But I'm sure you're smart enough to find out at least a couple of them yourself ;-) oh sorry: that reality doesn't exist...!

It depends if you're integrating Linux into a pre-existing Windows environment and network, or integrating Windows into a pre-existing Linux/Unix environment and network. Guess which is easier to do well? Guess which environment has less leeway?

Again... so what? The thing here is not selling Novell virtualization platform.

Errrrr, exactly the point. It doesn't make business sense to Novell, that's why, and that's why the deal doesn't make sense for them. I believe that was the main point of taking about this.

And again, you're misinformed. Just to cite press release from MS.....

Errrrr, right. I choose to look at the practicalities of things rather than press releases.

we didn't want to let Linux inside our eco-system but we decided to allow SUSE for selected customers with specific needs.

Ergo it has no real future there. Thanks for the confirmation. I'm also comforted to know that you're so privileged as an organisation to have an ecosystem. :-)

That confirms that you have no idea what you're talking about. Do you want me to say that Xen or KVM or VMware are better than Hyper-V so you could fulfill your insecurities?

The simple fact is that KVM, Xen and VMware have been running Linux, and even Windows, for an awful lot longer than Hyper-V has. People go with the mature solutions, and those already using Linux are more likely to go that route. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not that hard. Really.

Since you have no clue, you think that someone willing to use Linux will only choose to go that way.

So why are you a Microsoft-only shop then? :-) Excuse me while I get back on my chair from a good laugh.

It's wrong but you don't care because you don't care about business senses, only religious belief.

When you see someone talk about religion then you know for a fact that they're struggling.

The fact that customers happily running MS products might want to get a Linux server for a specific reason...

They might want to, but the odds are that they're going to have much more difficulty running a hetergeneous environment from that perspective than anything else. Why? Because..............they've actively bought into one vendor's products already and are using features difficult to use with anything else. It's not rocket science.

lol Good luck for your business ;-) I'm glad we're not a customer of yours ;-) Not that your arguments aren't filled of real hard facts and business sense...

Sweetheart, let me let you into a secret. We make sure that when we do a contract and get paid that we don't have a lot of pre-requisite costs that go to one software vendor before we do anything else, like consider other options, because we choose to only use their products!

Like I said, good luck with that that kind of inflexibility and fixed costs in the current climate ;-).

Edited 2009-02-17 17:28 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by satan666
by TBPrince on Tue 17th Feb 2009 18:18 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by satan666"
TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

They're not interested in making money from Windows under Red Hat or Suse within their virtualisation systems if it means that it exists in an environment without Windows and limits the revenue from selling further licenses for CALs, SQL Server, Exchange etc.

I do not agree on this. Fundamentals changed a lot. There has been a time when Microsoft aimed to replace Unix and thus was fighting Linux like its worst enemy. But that time passed. Microsoft was the first to realize they are not going to wipe Unix out in the mid-term so they just make themselves comfortable with the idea of having to interoperate, more or less.

To keep it short, a Windows license in a Unix environment is license more they will sell. The same way a Novell SUSE installation in a Windows-only shop is more than nothing. And could start a trend.

I'm amazed that while Microsoft decided that it cannot win that war and major Unix players agreed (Sun, Novell, now Red Hat, all of them have agreement with MS), middle-sized and small companies are still fighting that war.

This is the same way we decided that even MS customers might need a Linux box sometimes. Instead of being MS zealots and tell our customers that Windows is THE way, we just give our customers what they want, without requiring them to change the way they want to work. I'm surprised this might not be easy to understand (if not agreeable).

but it's amazing how others and even Microsoft's competitors just do not get this and never have.

I think competitors smelled the hard truth.

It depends if you're integrating Linux into a pre-existing Windows environment and network, or integrating Windows into a pre-existing Linux/Unix environment and network.Guess which is easier to do well? Guess which environment has less leeway?

I'm glad that now "it depends". ;-) A few hours ago there was a TRUTH and lots of lemmings. Now, it "just" depends ;-) This shows a lot.

Errrrr, exactly the point. It doesn't make business sense to Novell, that's why, and that's why the deal doesn't make sense for them. I believe that was the main point of taking about this.

No, the main point was to show how Novell was able to get a share where they had nothing. My (real-world, no hypothesis here) case was they were able to gain a little chair where they had no seat. You then decided the point was to sell Novell virtualization but that's not the case. The point is to sell any Novell product, not just the one you mentioned. In our case, they won't sell their virtualization platform, but they could sell other stuff. Easy. ;-)

Errrrr, right. I choose to look at the practicalities of things rather than press releases.

This is practicalities. I cited MS press releases to confirm that the formal agreement already allows both ways of running the partnership and makes your argument that Novell was a 2nd class citizen in that agreement not true. If running virtual SUSE in a Windows network is a way to exploit Novell by Microsoft, so it could be considered running virtual Windows in a SUSE network. Of course Microsoft hopes to sell licenses to Unix shops the same way Novell hopes to sell some licenses to Microsoft ones.

Ergo it has no real future there. Thanks for the confirmation.

When did I say I wanted SUSE to take over my network? ;-) Again, I'm sure Novell will reject my offer to sell some licenses to our customers because it's damaging for them ;-) That just confirms that you haven't other God than Linux. Other than that, it's blasphemy. I'm happy to have many Gods ;-) Now, talking about flexibility.... lol

The simple fact is that KVM, Xen and VMware have been running Linux, and even Windows, for an awful lot longer than Hyper-V has.

See? Usual my-cannon-is-longer argument again and again ;-) "Do the way I do or you're wrong". This is not a business argument: this is something you hear from priests ;-)

So why are you a Microsoft-only shop then? :-)

See? ;-) My way or nothing! lol

When you see someone talk about religion then you know for a fact that they're struggling.

Errr... won't comment about this ;-) It's clear enough.

They might want to, but the odds are that they're going to have much more difficulty running a hetergeneous environment from that perspective than anything else.

Then it became a technical matter. So if someone wants to deal with that complexity because they think they might get some kind of advantages out of it, who are you to tell them they should not try? ;-) Again, it's-my-way-or-nothing argument. Note that I'm not telling you what to do with your business while you're elevating yourself to a judge for everyone and tell them WHICH way they should go. I guess you know ALL businesses and all cases and can decide in their place ;-)

At least I'm glad that you switched from the "it cannot be done" argument to the "it's not worth the pain" one.


Why? Because..............they've actively bought into one vendor's products already and are using features difficult to use with anything else. It's not rocket science.

If they could do what they need with their existing infrastructure, they wouldn't need to look elsewhere. So if they need to solve a specific problem in a way they like, instead of adding 1-2-3 Linux servers, you would suggest them to switch the entire network to Linux? Now THAT makes sense ;-) Very flexible. Hey, we're not talking about formatting home computer hard drive to decide if we're going to boot Ubuntu or Mandriva here! Did you get it? ;-)

Like I said, good luck with that that kind of inflexibility and fixed costs in the current climate ;-).

Thanks, dear. When I will want my partner to tell me to trash the whole network and switch to a different one instead of adding a single Linux server to my Windows network, I will contact you for sure because that looked very flexible to me ;-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by satan666
by Stephen! on Tue 17th Feb 2009 17:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by satan666"
Stephen! Member since:
2007-11-24

I don't think novell feel that stupid


Well, maybe not yet. But there's always the possibility that Microsoft will just decide to stab them in the back one day.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by satan666
by KugelKurt on Tue 17th Feb 2009 02:21 UTC in reply to "Comment by satan666"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

So RedHat has shown the world that it is entirely possible to get interoperability without signing bogus patent deals. If Novell's guys feel stupid they have all the reasons in the world to feel so. Great move by RedHat. Congratulations! I would like to congratulate Novell too, for finally realizing how stupid they are.

Oh please. You can't compare both cases. Red Hat is solely a Linux distributor. Novell's portfolio is much bigger. The patent deal with MS also covers GroupWise and other closed source offerings from Novell.
The next thing you should not forget is that Novell gets lots of cash from MS. Novell is a business. Businesses seek profit. That's why Novell doesn't feel stupid.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by satan666
by Rahul on Tue 17th Feb 2009 03:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by satan666"
Rahul Member since:
2005-07-06

Red Hat hasn't been solely a Linux distributor in a long time now. Red Hat acquired among other things JBoss (middleware), Netscape (directory, certificate server etc). Might want to refer

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RedHatContributions

Edited 2009-02-17 04:02 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by satan666
by KugelKurt on Tue 17th Feb 2009 20:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by satan666"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

And Red Hat isn't offering those as part of Red Hat Linux?
Granted, NetWare is just legacy stuff, but Novell's product portfolio is still broader than Red Hat's.
GroupWise, eDirectory, ZENworks, etc. are all major Novell products that need to work well on Windows, too.
Somehow the deal between Novell and MS is made in the popular media to be just about Linux and other FLOSS software, but it's not. It's not that Novell admitted that its FLOSS products violate MS patents. This deal isn't even one-way. MS Exchange might violate Novell patents that are used in GroupWise and the other way around.
Why is the patent deal made into "Novell admits Linux violates MS patents"? Why not "MS admits, it violates GroupWise/NetWare/... patents"?
Novell fought SCO (and won). Novell contributes heavily to FLOSS. Among all companies there are many that are so much worse than Novell. Maybe my information is wrong, but I don't think that e.g. Xandros contributes much to FLOSS -- I don't see Xandros on this list: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/gregkh/images/lpc_200... . In fact Xandros and MS made a very simiar deal: http://www.xandros.com/news/press_releases/xandros_microsoft_collab...
Still Xandros is praised for putting Linux on the eee PC and Novell is supposed to be the bad guy.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by satan666
by Rahul on Tue 17th Feb 2009 20:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by satan666"
Rahul Member since:
2005-07-06

Red Hat is offering those as part of it's broad range of products. It is a layered offering including Red Hat Network, Red Hat Directory Server, Red Hat IPA etc. Novell's equivalent offerings are proprietary.

I have yet to see anybody praise Xandros really. Most people don't care since Xandros isn't a major contributor to any project. Besides Novell first signed the patent deal before Xandros did.

Edited 2009-02-17 20:58 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by satan666
by KugelKurt on Tue 17th Feb 2009 23:16 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by satan666"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

Novell's equivalent offerings are proprietary.

Exactly. That's why you can't compare both deals.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by satan666
by someguy10 on Tue 17th Feb 2009 17:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by satan666"
someguy10 Member since:
2007-08-01

"Red Hat is solely a Linux distributor".

Yeah, sure:

http://sources.redhat.com/projects.html

http://www.redhat.com/truthhappens/leadership/osdevelopment/

http://et.redhat.com/page/Main_Page

http://lwn.net/Articles/222773/

...

"It's better to keep your mouth shut and give the impression that you're stupid than to open it and remove all doubt."

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by satan666
by Michael on Wed 18th Feb 2009 11:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by satan666"
Michael Member since:
2005-07-01


All those projects are Open Source and most form important parts of Red Hat's Linux distribution. I believe the point was that Novell, on the other hand, has a wide portfolio of closed source, commercial projects that are entirely seperate from it's SUSE operating system. That is the difference between the circumstances of the two agreements.

"It's better to keep your mouth shut and give the impression that you're stupid than to open it and remove all doubt."

Yes. Yes it is. To that end, please don't make insulting remarks in the OSNews comments section. Last time I looked, personal attacks were against the rules.

Reply Score: 2

interoperability == good
by foldingstock on Mon 16th Feb 2009 20:56 UTC
foldingstock
Member since:
2008-10-30

This is good for everyone. The easier it is for systems to work together, the easier my job as a sysadmin will be. I'm glad to see Red Hat was able to accomplish this while not compromising their stance on open standards.

Reply Score: 7

RE: interoperability == good
by sbergman27 on Mon 16th Feb 2009 21:03 UTC in reply to "interoperability == good"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

This is good for everyone.

I guess so. The way the press release reads, though, is so mealy-mouthed. Reading it, I can't help but wonder if Red Hat has shifted to the Dark Side. I don't really think they have. But I think the press release sounds creepy.

Edited 2009-02-16 21:06 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: interoperability == good
by Rahul on Mon 16th Feb 2009 21:09 UTC in reply to "RE: interoperability == good"
Rahul Member since:
2005-07-06

Do you have specific concerns?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: interoperability == good
by sbergman27 on Mon 16th Feb 2009 21:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: interoperability == good"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Do you have specific concerns?

That was quick, Rahul. I'm still absorbing it all. I have great confidence in Red Hat. Based upon that confidence, I think they are probably doing the right thing. But my initial impression is that I should be concerned. This looks like a gamble. Please give me a little while longer to take it all in before I respond.

Edited 2009-02-16 21:16 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: interoperability == good
by Rahul on Mon 16th Feb 2009 22:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: interoperability == good"
Rahul Member since:
2005-07-06

There is a ogg download and pdf presentation in the bottom of

http://www-waa-akam.thomson-webcast.net/us/dispatching/?event_id=dc...

It is a pretty straightforward agreement that enables both vendors to validate and support each other's systems under VM's with no patent licensing or cross payments.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: interoperability == good
by elsewhere on Mon 16th Feb 2009 22:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: interoperability == good"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

It is a pretty straightforward agreement that enables both vendors to validate and support each other's systems under VM's with no patent licensing or cross payments.


It's not an agreement. It's two separate agreements, they basically both signed on for the other's certification program; Microsoft agrees to certify Red Hat for virtualization, Red Hat does the same. It's really a stretch to call it an interoperability agreement. That would imply a joint-effort in ensuring improved interoperability, which I don't think is quite the same thing.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, and it's certainly of value to end users on both sides, so it's smart for both companies. But I suspect that the relevance is being overstretched a bit for the purposes of drama, and no doubt for the blogarazzi to drag a certain dead horse out of the grave since it seems to have miraculously enjoyed a couple of months of stateful rest.

This isn't unprecedented, Red Hat has had similar "agreements" with MS in the past via JBoss.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: interoperability == good
by sbergman27 on Wed 18th Feb 2009 19:44 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: interoperability == good"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

There is a ogg download and pdf presentation in the bottom of

Hmmm. That link, sporting Red Hat's branding, immediately asks for First Name, Last Name, Company, and Email Address. And it says that submitting the form indicates my acceptance of a linked agreement.

That does nothing to alleviate my concerns about the creepiness of this situation.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: interoperability == good
by Rahul on Wed 18th Feb 2009 20:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: interoperability == good"
Rahul Member since:
2005-07-06

It was freely accessible for so long when I pointed it out to you and all that has been added is a simple webform with some stock information anyone could fill in. Your reasoning doesn't sound very logical to me. Anyway that webcast isn't that important. The FAQ on the promo page gives you all there is to know about it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: interoperability == good
by sbergman27 on Wed 18th Feb 2009 20:09 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: interoperability == good"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

It was freely accessible for so long when I pointed it out to you and all that has been added is a simple webform with some stock information anyone could fill in.

What can I say? I clicked your link for the first time a few minutes ago, and was immediately presented with a Red Hat branded page demanding my Name, Company, Email Address, and saying that by submitting the form, I would get to hear the presentation, at the expense of accepting an agreement. I did listen to the presentation, and watched the associated slides. And it turned out to be the usual corporate-speak I am used to hearing from Novell, SCO, Microsoft, and others.

Basically: Virtualation is big. It could become much bigger. We think we're going to make a lot more money off of it, and our new partner does to.

I simply didn't happen to find all that to be particularly reassuring.

Edited 2009-02-18 20:15 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: interoperability == good
by niemau on Tue 17th Feb 2009 06:40 UTC in reply to "RE: interoperability == good"
niemau Member since:
2007-06-28

The way the press release reads, though, is so mealy-mouthed. Reading it, I can't help but wonder if Red Hat has shifted to the Dark Side. I don't really think they have. But I think the press release sounds creepy.


agreed. it's one of those 'seems safe... so why do i feel like i need to take a shower' sorta things.

i'm all for interoperability... and i'm all for doing it without all of the patent-y muck. can i be cautiously optimistic and still feel a little icky?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: interoperability == good
by rockwell on Tue 17th Feb 2009 22:18 UTC in reply to "RE: interoperability == good"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

Calm the hell down. It's just saying RedHat will certify Windows in thier virtualization methods, and MS will do vice versa. Big deal.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: interoperability == good
by sbergman27 on Tue 17th Feb 2009 22:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: interoperability == good"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Calm the hell down. It's just saying RedHat will certify Windows in thier virtualization methods, and MS will do vice versa. Big deal.

After looking over the situation more carefully, I would agree. This is not as big a deal as it seemed when first presented. The press release still sounds creepy, though.

Edited 2009-02-17 22:44 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: interoperability == good
by ashcrow on Sat 21st Feb 2009 16:18 UTC in reply to "RE: interoperability == good"
ashcrow Member since:
2008-02-02

Press releases almost always read like that no matter where they come from. I'm no marketing guy but I swear companies have 'press release writers' and their art is to talk, and talk, and talk (and throw buzzwords in as they can).

Reply Score: 1

Paravitualized
by Dr-ROX on Mon 16th Feb 2009 21:08 UTC
Dr-ROX
Member since:
2006-01-03

Maybe someday we will get paravirtualized Windows. Anyway good move for booth sides.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Paravitualized
by Mark Williamson on Tue 17th Feb 2009 01:08 UTC in reply to "Paravitualized"
Mark Williamson Member since:
2005-07-06

AFAIK (appropriate versions of) Windows on the MS hypervisor is capable of running paravirtualised - not just in supporting "accelerated device drivers" but also in core OS functions like virtual memory management. This still relies on virtualisation-aware hardware (unlike Xen paravirtualisation, for instance, which predated the wide availability of AMD-V and Intel VT-x) but is there as a performance optimisation. I believe the relevant OS releases are Vista and its derived server version (I forget which release number this is).

There were patches - contributed by Novell, actually - to support these hypercalls under Xen. There was some back-and-forth about how many of those were actually a performance win (and therefore worth supporting directly under Xen). I don't know if they have made their way into upstream (yet) but Novell may have been shipping / planning to ship these patches in their Xen in any case.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Paravitualized
by Mark Williamson on Tue 17th Feb 2009 01:09 UTC in reply to "Paravitualized"
Mark Williamson Member since:
2005-07-06

AFAIK (appropriate versions of) Windows on the MS hypervisor is capable of running paravirtualised - not just in supporting "accelerated device drivers" but also in core OS functions like virtual memory management. This still relies on virtualisation-aware hardware (unlike Xen paravirtualisation, for instance, which predated the wide availability of AMD-V and Intel VT-x) but is there as a performance optimisation. I believe the relevant OS releases are Vista and its derived server version (I forget which release number this is).

There were patches - contributed by Novell, actually - to support these hypercalls under Xen. There was some back-and-forth about how many of those were actually a performance win (and therefore worth supporting directly under Xen). I don't know if they have made their way into upstream (yet) but Novell may have been shipping / planning to ship these patches in their Xen in any case.

There's nothing specific that makes Xen and Hyper-V the only systems that could support this, though. VMware could implement these paravirtualisations if they wanted; so could KVM, VirtualBox, etc.

Disclaimer: I work on Xen.

Reply Score: 2

Pretty Straightforward Deal
by segedunum on Mon 16th Feb 2009 22:45 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

It looks like a pretty straightfoward cross-support of one's operating system working on the other's virtualisation platform. Microsoft wanted to try and do something with their virtualisation offering to get it noticed but I think Red Hat have the better of the deal. They get Windows supported on their platform, which is a big deal for certainly a few organisations even if it works fine now anyway, and those using Red Hat will probably be using Red Hat's virtual platform anyway.

It's certainly rather a slap in the face for Novell and the convoluted, stupid deal they got themselves into.

Reply Score: 1

Is that patent still valid
by bandido55 on Mon 16th Feb 2009 23:29 UTC
bandido55
Member since:
2006-10-02

It is my understanding that patents are valid for 12 years and than in some instances they might extended to 15 years. How come a patent that is 22 ydears old be valid now?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Is that patent still valid
by bandido55 on Mon 16th Feb 2009 23:30 UTC in reply to "Is that patent still valid"
bandido55 Member since:
2006-10-02

oops sorry, My comment was not intended for this discussion

Reply Score: 1

v ahh haa
by johndotcom on Tue 17th Feb 2009 01:04 UTC
News?
by Phobos on Tue 17th Feb 2009 02:11 UTC
Phobos
Member since:
2008-04-30

You mean, it's just like Sun's partnership with MS? http://www.microsoft.com/VIRTUALIZATION/partner-profile-sun.mspx

Do note that Sun's partnership includes the whole xVM portfolio, including xVM VDI, while Red Hat's only cover the hypervisor...

the news should be how late in the game Red Hat has gotten in the virtualization field.

Reply Score: 2

RE: News?
by Rahul on Tue 17th Feb 2009 04:00 UTC in reply to "News?"
Rahul Member since:
2005-07-06

Red Hat has been doing virtualization stuff for atleast a few years now and acquired Qumranet, primary developers of KVM sometime ago as well. The important news is that interoperability efforts doesn't have to go with exclusionary patent deals.

Reply Score: 1