Microsoft has released its Virtual Machine Additions for Linux. "Virtual Machine Additions for Linux are designed to improve the usability and interoperability of running qualified Linux operating systems as guests or virtual machines of Virtual Server 2005 R2 SP1." Red Hat and SUSE are the obvious supported guests.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
Your comments are downright laughable. I don't mean to be rude, but get a couple years experience out here in the real world of IT and then you'll have some authority to at least sound like you know what you're talking about.
"It is considerably easier to "be comfortable" with Linux, after all, when you realise that with Linux you can see the source code so there are no hidden nasties in it"
No one cares about having the source code to Linux, outside of the ocassional gov't agency which may require it due to regulations. I cannot stress this enough...outside of academia, virtually no one cares about the the psuedo-benefits provided by having full access to Linux source code. Open source does not equal more secure.
"There are a lot less ways (both technical, external/security and legal) that your mission-critical server can fail to meet its mission with Linux than there are with Windows."
Such as what? A system is only as reliable as its last backup, or its last virus scan, regardless of the flavor of OS running it. A system is also only as good as its least competent admin (which surely won't be a 'new graduate' as you recommended).
"Saving just one incident (either technical, external/security or legal) with Windows will easily pay for your new staffer who knows Linux and can minimise your reliance on Windows."
So you're saying that Linux is immune to technical, security, and legal woes? If that's the case, why isn't it more widespread within corporate IT? Hell, why hasn't Windows been stomped out of existence by now?
Nonsense like this makes me so furious, especially when it is painfully obvious that the person spouting it out has zero experience out in the trenches with the real IT folks.
Member since:2005-06-29
"It is considerably easier to "be comfortable" with Linux, after all, when you realize that with Linux you can see the source code so there are no hidden nasties in it"
Do you have much background in IT? I have 25 years worth, in both in-house and commercial software development, and having access to the OS source code makes it much easier to get my job done. I can differentiate between OS and userspace bugs, determine what the documentation is really trying to say, and provide far more intelligent bug reports and enhancement requests to the OS vendor or support provider.
Member since:2007-02-17
My comments were factual. There, I corrected it for you.
Yes you did. You didn't do too bad a job, either.
Strawman.
Access to the source code is valuable even for people who don't know a line of code from a strand of spaghetti.
Why is this so? Because there are people who did not write the code, but who can read code very well, and who do read the code, and who use the system themselves. There are literally thousands of such people worldwide. End users of the code who know what they are looking at, and who have a capability to verify that what they can see is what is in the repositories (ie, they can audit the code), and who are seen to use the code themselves on systems they own and are responsible for. IBM is the prime case in point. Google are an excellent example. Oracle are another. Those organisations know exactly what they are doing, they look at the open source code, and they use the code in question ... and even contribute back.
This scenario guarantees that there no nasties in the code. You get the guarantee only because it is open.
BTW, none of "IBM, Google or Oracle" fit your description of "the ocassional gov't agency which may require it due to regulations".
With a closed source OS, OTOH, you do not know what is in it. You can have a reasonable guess ... OSX for example is based largely on the open source BSD, and it is likely to be pretty reasonable, but Windows is KNOWN to have all sorts of functions embedded in it, such as DRM and WGA and a backdoor for Windows upadte, which are KNOWN to be security holes and not features that are in the interests of the end user or the owner of the computer hardware.
*** I cannot stress this enough. ***
"There are a lot less ways (both technical, external/security and legal) that your mission-critical server can fail to meet its mission with Linux than there are with Windows."
Security: Windows systems are vulnerable to the vast array of malware, virtually all of which is written for Windows. Botnets (the actual bots) are all Windows machines. It does no good to argue that "it is possible to keep a Windows machine secure" when the actual demonstrable fact is that most Windows machines aren't kept secure.
Legal: BSA audit. Need I say any more? Ask ernie Ball about this. You don't get audited for your use of Linux ... despite how much Microsoft would like that to happen.
Technical: http://apcmag.com/vista_activation
Functional: http://dvdxcopy.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/524755
Strawman again. What I said was that people who use Linux and who understand code can and do look at the code and discover if there is anything in it that is not in their own best interest.
Contrast that with people who use Windows who know there are aspects of it that are not in their best interests but who use it anyway.
Pfft. You don't know me at all, so you can't comment on this. I would make the observation that I've probably designed more computer systems than you have even worked on. I could possibly train you up, but from your attitude it seems that you are too closed-minded to actually learn something new.
You misunderstood. I wouldn't recommend a new graduate as an IT admin ... I would recommend a new graduate to be a cheap-to-hire person the Windows-centric IT admin could ask "how do I do that on Linux?" ... to overcome the fear factor of the IT person who only knows one system as is probably frightened for his job if anything new were to come along. IT people often aren't too bright and find it hard to comprehend things that aren't exactly the same as what they have done before.
Edited 2007-10-25 07:56
Member since:2005-07-11
Member since:2006-03-23
i think its you that are stupid, just because something is the best, doesent mean its going to get to be the most widely used..
for example, wouldnt it be best if we all ate healthy foods? but do we? what if we all lived in a world without crime of racism? but do we? what if professionals actually advised clients correctly? but do they? the list goes on, and has completely invalidated your entire argument.
Member since:2005-08-18
Maybe, maybe not. It depends entirely on the company, its needs and the situation at hand.
That has never been, and never will be, a good idea no matter what OS your business is using.
Not that it isn't happening way too often.
This may be a shocking revelation but the majority of companies a) don't have the resources to audit an OS and b) don't really care as long as it meets whatever their criteria are.
No doubt some or even many would be better off with Linux but for entirely different reasons.
Maybe but you'll have to provide some actual evidence and/or examples before we buy that.
No system is better than it's admin and Linux wont save you from an incompetent one.
Edited 2007-10-25 09:50
Member since:2005-08-11
Most companies main concern is the almighty bottom line, and it makes no sense to switch from something that is already working to something unfamiliar, having to hire new staff just to support an unneeded change. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
If you are actively looking for an alternative to Windows, then sure, you know that hiring a new person may be necessary, otherwise, companies like to stick with what they know, and what works. Businesses are usually pretty conservative.
That's a load of bull. If it's a technical problem, say like a harddrive or MB failure, it makes no difference then if it is Linux, BSD, Windows or whatever, the cost would be about equivalent. If it's legal, it would still work out about the same, Unless your legal problem is pirated software, and then, hey, if you choose closed source products, you should pay for them, you made the choice.
Security breaches happen on Linux too, the main source of insecurity is the user (weak passwords, social engineering, and so on), not the OS. The only thing I see where Linux would be better then Windows from an Incident/Cost view is viruses and malware, and even then, steps can be taken to lessen the threat on Windows.
Member since:
2007-02-17
If you don't have anyone like that, then hire somebody. It will be worth it. Get a new graduate even.
It is considerably easier to "be comfortable" with Linux, after all, when you realise that with Linux you can see the source code so there are no hidden nasties in it, and with Linux there will be no-one auditing you for the number of licenses you hold or the number of client machines accessing your server(s).
There are a lot less ways (both technical, external/security and legal) that your mission-critical server can fail to meet its mission with Linux than there are with Windows.
Saving just one incident (either technical, external/security or legal) with Windows will easily pay for your new staffer who knows Linux and can minimise your reliance on Windows.