Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Jul 2006 11:52 UTC, submitted by Patrik Buckau
Permalink for comment 144203
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-02-27
Do i understand rightly then, that all three, VMWare, Xen, and Microsoft Windows hypervisor technology are trying to do the same thing. The difference that MS has no interrest in allowing other host Os's, whereas XEN is interrested in running on any host, for Windows on top of Microsoft Windows hypervisor technology, rather than "native" XEN enabled Kernel. And if so couldn't there be a problem in the future for Linux if the implementation of Windows on top of XEN is not as stable and performant? Is XENSource therefore helping to make Windows hypervisor technology XEN compatible? So rather than developing it's own Windows version of XEN (like VMWare) you are using existing Windows hypervisor technology.
What is the real benefit of that? Hasn't XEN already got great market share by running on top of Linux and Unix (as there are more linux and Unix servers out there, as far as i know.) And as far as i under stand it more or less is now accepted as a new standard and endorsed by most big OS providers (Novell, Sun, red hat ...)
Edited 2006-07-18 15:51