Submitted by 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.
Why is Red Hat _obvious_ supported?
My guess is they hold the market share lead in virtual machine hosts in the linux sector, so you’d be cutting out a large market segment otherwise.
Edited 2007-10-24 20:34
Redhat and SUSE Enterprise servers are very widely used in the server market and therefore it is an obvious reason to support them in “Virtual Server 2005”. A lot of Linux servers out there are running these two products.
I was wondering the same thing. Isn’t Microsoft still making innuendos that Red Hat violates their patents and their users are at risk? In that case, it seems odd to me that MS would support them. It’s like MS is validating RH by supporting their product.
Edited 2007-10-24 21:27
“In that case, it seems odd to me that MS would support them. It’s like MS is validating RH by supporting their product.”
Business is business. As a corporation, you simply cannot afford to hold “personal” grudges against companies, especially for things that remain unproven. Plus if it means a Windows license sale, MS will support whatever makes them money. It’s not rocket science.
It is true that businesses competitors make all kinds of seemingly strange agreements. But, this is not what I’m talking about. This appears to be going against the groundwork they may be trying to lay for another strategic maneuver.
My point was that this seems contrary to their current business plan, which appears to be creating uncertainty among Linux customers. Have they changed their mind about Linux and patents? Based on this move, it would seem so.
I think you missed my point.
Edited 2007-10-24 23:49
Business is business, do you really think Red Hat or SuSE is going to be very concerned when the CEO’s are making millions off selling ‘free’ software and providing support?
In the end it plays out like this:
1. CEO’s make millions
2. Lawyers make millions
3. Shareholders make millions
4. Businesses pay out $$$
5. End user (is forgotten)…..
Look… we all know that competitors frequently make deals with each other when they feel it is economically in their best interest. Case in point, MS/Novell.
This, on the other hand, is more akin to accusing someone of being an idiot, yet you go on to hire them to do your taxes for you. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. One action is invalidating the other.
Likewise, MS supporting Red Hat is like admitting that Red Hat is not doing anything wrong — which is contrary to all of the comments by Ballmer.
I don’t see why this is so hard to understand?
Edited 2007-10-25 03:06
No it isn’t. MS isn’t supporting Red Hat, they’re making sure Linux can run well with Virtual Server.
I don’t see why business realities are so hard to understand. Obviously some shops run Linux and will not change to Windows (no matter how many sales drones MS sends their way) so MS is left with the options of either not making any sale at all or making a sale of Virtual Server.
I would have expected they’d only support those they made patent agreements with. What a surprise.
Red Hat & SUSE are both market leaders in the Enterprise arena most other outfits are most likely for a production environment use it for support.
Remember from what SUSE said, their customers use both Linux & Windows platforms and want them to work together or something to that affect.
The customer is always right and all of these companies are traded on the stock exchange so they are going to do whatever to make money plain and simple. Whether anyone agrees to it is another thing.
That is, it would surely make more sense to run RedHat or SuSe as the host server operating system (and thereby allow as many client machines as you need to connect to most services without paying CAL fees per client machine), and have Windows run as a guest OS on your server for one or two additional services that you might need that are Windows-only.
Only if your organization is staffed with people who know or are comfortable with Linux. A lot (not most, but a lot) of companies use Windows for most of their server needs. MS knows this, and can use this to sell licenses while looking good in the process.
But in one way, it’s good for OSS. It’s just another way for Linux to sneak in the back door and take over from within. Too bad they didn’t do this for *BSD too, as I would be ecstatic at that.
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.
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.
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.
Sure, but that’s an edge case. The majority of companies in the world aren’t making software and don’t employ any software developers.
What about companies in the world that hire IT staff? I suggest that most such companies have some custom development, done either internally or by contract. Those that develop and support such software will be more efficient (and hence cost effective) when source code is available.
BTW, I notice that you did not address the fact that someone with extensive IT experience disagreed with you, per your original comment, nor answer my question about your IT experience.
There are also those with extensive IT experience who agree.
That depends on what kind of software you make. I’ve never been helped by the fact the the source of the OS I’m using is available. What *have* helped a lot is to have good system and api documentation and that is what have helped me.
It’s really none of your business but I have 12+ years experience working in IT with companies ranging in size from small to huge (DHL) using both closed and open source systems.
Edited 2007-10-26 05:06
First, an apology; I was responding as if the message I responded to was jason.knight, whom I originally replied to.
Given that, it was none of my business how much experience you (Soulbender) had; it was relevant regarding Jason, since he raised the issue of experience.
I can agree that the kind of software can influence the degree to which it is useful, but I’ve had experience with “high level” software that failed as a result of OS bugs as well. Also, the source code — assuming the compiler and hardware are not in error — is nearly always more precise documentation of an API than separate documentation.
edited to get try to get the nested quotes correct
Edited 2007-10-26 05:24 UTC
Apology accepted.
Not everyone uses compiled languages. I would bet that a lot, if not most, of the custom software is using interpreted languages (VB, Python, Java etc) and not compiled ones, especially the ones made by/for smaller companies.
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
“Access to the source code is valuable even for people who don’t know a line of code from a strand of spaghetti.”
Uh, no, it’s not.
“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”
If you don’t “know a line of code from a strand of spaghetti” than you can’t read it.
Yes, it is. See below.
You misunderstand. You personally may be unable to distinguish code from spaghetti, but nevertheless you can see that there are experts (such as Google, IBM and Oracle) who can do so, and who do closely inspect the code (even to the point of being able to improve on it), and who end up using the code themselves.
If there was anything malicious in the code that was against the best interests of Google, or IBM, or Oracle, or anyone else for that matter … then do you really think these expert parties would use the code if they though it was no good?
Can you see the point now? Even though you personally may not be able to read code, nevertheless you know that experts who are able to read code have open access to the same code that you are considering using, and you know that those experts use that selfsame code themselves.
“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”
The trick in understanding something is to read what it actually says, not what you THOUGHT it said. The phrase “there are people who did not write the code, but who can read code very well” clearly does NOT refer to people who can’t tell the difference between code and spaghetti.
Edited 2007-10-25 15:21
Amen. That’s exactly what I was thinking as I read through all the other comments… Just because you (say, an IT person- which I was at one time) can’t read the code, you still benefit from the fact that you can google the problem you’re having, find the project’s bugzilla site, see that it’s a(n) (un)known bug, etc, rather than try to wade through the MS website or pay for a service like experts-exchange or *gasp* MS support.
(Edited for clarity)
Edited 2007-10-25 16:38
“You misunderstand. You personally may be unable to distinguish code from spaghetti, but nevertheless you can see that there are experts (such as Google, IBM and Oracle) who can do so, and who do closely inspect the code (even to the point of being able to improve on it), and who end up using the code themselves. ”
Closed source companies also have people who can read/write source code and fix bugs, and some closed source software, such as OS X (and in my opinion, Win2k3) is generally considered to be very good. Your argument is just useless. Most companies don’t care about how bugs get fixed, just how soon, and who can we blame.
Availablility of the source may help a OSS in the long term, but that doesn’t help a company get their website backup if Apache shits the bed because of a bug, or if all their laptops can’t connect because no driver exists for their particular wireless card (and don’t say “they should have bought hardware on the Linux HCL, companies don’t just upgrade hardware en mass for no good reason, that would far outrun the savings in OS fees)
If a company doesn’t have anyone available to read and fix the code, when a bug is encountered, then the availability of the source code is irrelevant. Business rarely operates that way.
Most companies don’t care about ideology or Closed vs Open source software, they want stuff that works, and stuff they can work with. If they are already using Windows, Odds are they will stick with it. Especially small business who probably can’t afford a dedicated Linux tech, but the geeky guy in accounting can keep Windows working.
“Can you see the point now? Even though you personally may not be able to read code, nevertheless you know that experts who are able to read code have open access to the same code that you are considering using, and you know that those experts use that selfsame code themselves. ”
That doesn’t give Businesses any reason to sleep better at night, MS and Apple also run their own software (at MS it’s called eating their own dogfood) and lots of employees have access to the source, but there is still bugs in their software, and there is still bugs in OSS.
Also, it doesn’t matter what IBM, Red Hat, Google or whoever do the code internally, if it is not chosen by the maintainer of any particular piece of the Linux pie, then it makes no difference. Just like that spat about the scheduler in the lInux kernel that just died down, OSS does not eliminate politics or human nature from the equation, and bugs always exist in code, regardless who wrote it, regardless if they are experts or not.
“The trick in understanding something is to read what it actually says, not what you THOUGHT it said. The phrase “there are people who did not write the code, but who can read code very well” clearly does NOT refer to people who can’t tell the difference between code and spaghetti. ”
Uh, I understood it, I just don’t agree with your statements. That’s not a misunderstanding, that’s an opinion. There is a difference. I believe that having access to the source has no bearing on most businesses decisions to use OSS, price and stability are much greater criteria in their eyes
Your comments are downright laughable.
If you change that very first word of your post “Your” to “My”, it will actually make sense.
Edited 2007-10-25 08:20
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.
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
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.
VMWare ESX and VMWare VCentre come with the usual pointy-clicky consoles. Your admins need never touch the command line service console.
That doesn’t matter. Perception is the issue here. Some Pointy haired bosses think Linux is hard, so they’ll stick with Windows. It doesn’t matter what the reality it, it matters what your organizations perceptions are. And nobody likes change.
I’m not sure about the places you’ve worked in, but I’ve yet to find anywhere where the PHB gets to choose which products they will deploy. Of course there is a requirement for management to sign large purchase orders, but in my experience it is the IT managers and sysadmins who do the evaluation and present the purchase orders for signing.
I have never come across a manager with no IT experience choosing software because one looks nicer. I’m sure there are some real instances where a dunderhead has picked something out of a shiny catalogue (In fact I know there are), but it’s rare.
If you’re interested, several years ago the company I work for evaluated Virtual Server against VMWare ESX, and we chose VMWare. It was a good decision: these days things like VCentre and VMotion kick Virtual Server all around the server room.
What’s the point in virtualizing linux if you are not comfortable with it?
If you want a virtualized linux, you plan to use it and if you plan to use it, you better be comfortable with it.
Therefore it makes more sense to virtualize Windows (the most stable layer should be at the highest level).
I don’t buy MS’ tactics, coming out with “””gifts”””
like this for Linux.
On the one hand, they’re getting their lawyers into action against Red Hat. Now, they’re doing this. It doesn’t add up.
Wait until we see them “embrace and extend” V.M.s on Linux. “Leopards don’t change their spots”…..
A paper tiger. I prefer VMware any time. Runs *BSD, Solaris, Any Linux, windows, etc..
“I prefer VMware any time.”
While I agree with you that VMWare is indeed a superior product, Virtual Server is free (as in beer nuts). It also exposes a drop dead simple COM programming API, so extending it is very easy to do.
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…
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
“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.
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
Moreover you don’t seem to counter the main point I made in that sentence:
“Moreover you don’t seem to counter the main point I made in that sentence:”
Why should I address it when you simply restated the obvious? There is absolutely nothing wrong with Microsoft giving away a competing product for free. Notice how VMWare quickly responded by subsequently giving away VMWare Server for free?
There’s nothing to counter.
Any other blatantly obvious observations for us today?
Running a “supported” Linux distribution inside Windows in a virtual machine. Possibly Novell, which they’ve bought by then. They don’t care one bit about Red Hat, it’s only because of RH market share. The rest? Away with it.
I tried Virtual PC for the first time back in 2004, it was Connectix Virtual PC back then, since it is by no means something Microsoft has produced, then it was BOUGHT by Microsoft.
If you look up Connectix in the wikipedia:
Guess what was the first thing Microsoft did when they re-branded the product?: They changed the menu option labelled “Linux/I386” that allowed you to create a Linux virtual machine with the label “others”, so if you didn’t know that Connectix Virtual PC allowed explicitly to create a Linux vmachine you felt like “just lets try if this works”.
So there is nothing new here. If something, Microsoft might be restricting which distros they allow to work within virtual PC, with the aim to corner Linux just to the main commercial offerings, and maybe dropping Red Hat if they not cave in to Microsoft patent threats in the future.
Anyhow, there is no use to using Virtual PC, for one the preferred way to virtualizations shuld be Microsoft VMachines as guests inside Gnu/Linux hosts: Thus you can visrtualise the unstable system inside a stable and secure host. Virtualisation the way Microsoft likes it is foolish.
Moreover, why bother using Virtual PC when you can have VMWare and VirtualBOX, which are multiplatform and costless??
100% GPL
And it’s the fastest.
Unless you need good graphics (Cirrus logic sucks)
“free as in beer nuts”
Yes, I did read your comment. And that kind of “free” is of not much interest if it deprives me of the Freedom to use my computer in any way I want to.
I for one, couldn’t care less about what Microsoft or its employees deem is in “my best interest”, heck! it is my computer, man!
Supose I want to use a virtualized Vista (And I want to pay for the licence): For example, to take a snapshot of the virtual machine’s state, so when it comes full of malware I can simply replace the virtual machine with the snapshot I had saved and save a lot of time of installing, validating, cloning-repartitioning, adding service packs, patches, antispyware, antivirus… and all the nonsensical Windows installation ritual.
Why should I pay more for a “business” edition that I don’t need nor I am ready to pay for because there is some arbitrary restriction introduced by Microsoft in order to segment its user market???
That is the kind of thing I refer to:
When you use Free software, it is designed to protect your freedom to use the program in any way you deem inclined to -wise or foolish, it is up to you, it is YOUR computer- whereas by using proprietary software you become subject to the ludicrous limitiations and conditions that the fancy of a third party tries to impose upon you: Now, which of these two options is in your (or anyone’s) best interest?
Edited 2007-10-25 15:33
Quite on the contrary: There are absolutely many things wrong with these Microsoft’s-business-as-usual practices:
Once again you are misleading:
This is the exactly same reason (leveraging its market domination in the desktop to “invade” other market segments by bundling inferior products in order to derail the other players and gain a strong foothold in that market) that lead the DoJ of the US Gov to the anti trust case against MSFT, much the same that has happened more recently in the European Union and South Korea.
When you are a convicted monopolist worlwide and your predatory and anticompetitive practices are so well known, there are some things you simply should not be allowed to do.
Edited 2007-10-25 20:18