Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 24th Oct 2007 20:08 UTC, submitted by twickline
Microsoft 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.
Thread beginning with comment 280655
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: re
by kosmonaut on Thu 25th Oct 2007 13:02 UTC in reply to "RE: re"
kosmonaut
Member since:
2005-09-27

No, VirtualPC is not Free, it is proprietary, although Microsoft has decided to give it FOR free as one of the maneouvers to try and dent VMWare market share (the other maneouver is to support XenSource's virtualization offering in order to weaken VMWare's position).

Pretty much the same classic move they used against Netscape, RealPlayer, etc.

But the main drawback compared with VMWare (which is also proprietary) is that VirtualPC will not work over antyhing other than Windows.

Microsoft is beginning to try to prohibit people using certain windows versions as virtual machines inside Linux/Windows Hosts. Notice that virtualization would render windows servers unnecesary in the future.

By now, they have included licence provisions that prohibit that you use certain Vista versions as virtual machines. I wonder wether this is done to force people to pay for each copy of Windows thus adding a "virtual microsoft tax" to their bottom line, or wether this is a first step towards forcing Windows-Server-only/Bussines-only virtualization.

These are the kind of restrictions that the proprietary software model allows to be introduced by the supplier against the best interest of the users and that are totally unwanted and avoidable only if you have access to the source code, no matter if you are a programmer or a cooker.(so much for the spaghetti comparison)

Source: Softpedia:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-True-Limitations-of-Windows-Vist...

Both Windows Vista Home Basic and Home Premium can run as host and guest operating systems in a virtual machine. There is of course the small aspect that this would contravene with the EULA and that Microsoft will not offer any support for such scenarios.


P.D.: Innotek's VirtualBOX on the other hand does have a Free-as-in-Freedom-and-Open-Source version under the GPL and moreover you have full access to the source code repositories. ;-)

Edited 2007-10-25 13:04

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: re
by jayson.knight on Thu 25th Oct 2007 14:26 in reply to "RE[2]: re"
jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

"No, VirtualPC is not Free, it is proprietary,"

Did you even read my comment? Notice the "free as in beer nuts" statement?

"Microsoft is beginning to try to prohibit people using certain windows versions as virtual machines inside Linux/Windows Hosts. Notice that virtualization would render windows servers unnecesary in the future."

I haven't seen what you're alluding to (aside from the low end home versions of Vista...who wants to virtualize those anyways?), plus that makes zero sense. Regardless of where you run Windows you still have to purchase a license so why would MS care? I think you're incorrect.

"By now, they have included licence provisions that prohibit that you use certain Vista versions as virtual machines."

Yeah, home basic and home premium editions. Virtualization is not a feature for average home users. Home users who are savvy enough to either know what virtualization, or want it, will also be the kind of user that purchases either a business edition, or ultimate. They will also be the type of user who understands the security caveats that come with virtualization and will take the extra precautions necessary.

"These are the kind of restrictions that the proprietary software model allows to be introduced by the supplier against the best interest of the users"

It's in the best interest for the majority of their home users who do not care about virtualization. Besides, it's not a technical limitation, only a EULA enforcement which only means it's not supported by MS. They aren't going to send anyone after you if you decide to virtualize either HB or HP.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: re
by agrouf on Thu 25th Oct 2007 14:59 in reply to "RE[3]: re"
agrouf Member since:
2006-11-17

Home users who use linux and want vista just to run Skype won't buy a professionnal license. In that case they better pirate Windows than buy an unsupported home edition or pay that much for a business edition.

Edited 2007-10-25 15:01

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: re
by kosmonaut on Thu 25th Oct 2007 15:28 in reply to "RE[3]: re"
kosmonaut Member since:
2005-09-27

Did you even read my comment? Notice the "free as in beer nuts" statement?


Moreover you don't seem to counter the main point I made in that sentence:

Microsoft has decided to give it FOR free as one of the maneouvers to try and dent VMWare market share (the other maneouver is to support XenSource's virtualization offering in order to weaken VMWare's position).

Reply Parent Score: 2