IBM has quietly added a new option to the suddenly vogue market for “hypervisor” software that lets a computer run multiple operating systems simultaneously, CNET News.com has learned.
IBM throws weight behind multi-OS push
Submitted by jeanmarc 2005-02-24 IBM 12 Comments
Technology that has been hidden for years from the mere mortal is now available becouse of Open software and commercial competition on different fronts and levels. Finally, at least 1 company “get’s it” that a monopoly is NOT the way to go!
IBM has been virtualizing operating systems on their systems for decades. Names change, but reality hasn’t changed THAT much.
“Finally, at least 1 company “get’s it” that a monopoly is NOT the way to go!”
Do you really and truly think IBM “gets it” beyond competing against Microsoft, Sun, and HP? The playing field is different, now, and these companies either adapt or fall behind. Sun, IBM, and HP all have some OSS strategy and are developing a business model around it. Microsoft is starting to lag behind riding on their Windows/Office inertia (basically going nowhere fast).
>>>>Sun, IBM, and HP all have some OSS strategy and are developing a business model around it. Microsoft is starting to lag behind riding on their Windows/Office inertia (basically going nowhere fast).
The only companies that have rock solid OSS strategies are IBM and Microsoft. They are the only companies that understand the interactions between opensource and patent protection — for the last 5 years.
HP and SUN never had a comprehensive OSS strategy — that’s why they offered their own linux distributions. IBM knew that there was a problem in becoming a linux distributor.
The only difference is that Microsoft tried to warn you that there is a potential problem and IBM didn’t.
I wouldn’t worry about patent issues. They will get worked out. I suspect that (disregarding the many conspirousy theories) Microsoft is filing lame patents like “isNot” to help get the issue worked out. It is in companies best interest to settle the patent question, one way or the other. These dumb patents will surely help to get that settled (by forcing lawyers and courts – and possibly even law makers – to act). Companies do not like uncertainty.
> Finally, at least 1 company “get’s it” that a monopoly is NOT the way to go!
Are you kidding me?. EVERY company’s goal is to have a monopoly in whatever they are selling/making. If you don’t have that kind of drive to be the leader, you should immediately sell or close down and take up a day job. IBM’s goal is to totally monopolise the services sector. They already have the hearts and minds of the Linux community as a company that “gets it”.
If there were no corporate laws on competition it would be natural for every company to become a monopoly.
>>>I wouldn’t worry about patent issues.
It’s not about worry or not. It’s about being a part of risk management. RedHat is willing to take the risk to become a linux distributor, IBM doesn’t. Motorola is willing to embed linux into their smart phones, but IBM isn’t willing to embed linux into their own commercial products.
The MOST scary thing is that linux fans WON’T even consider the risk factors first.
Fundamentally, only IBM and Microsoft understand the basic flaw in the current GPL system —- that GPL v.2 is based on copyright laws. Only IBM and Microsoft understood the legal ramifications of patent laws in the GPL ecosystem.
IBM has been working on a MULTI-DECADE plan on switching all hardware and software to the 1 SINGLE platform. They already did it for the mini-computers with Power4. IBM doesn’t talk about it much (because their PR is on linux), but the real plan behind closed door is something like mainframes on POWER8/9 hardware with their mainframe OS on hypervisor.
> The MOST scary thing is that linux fans WON’T even consider the risk factors first.
> Fundamentally, only IBM and Microsoft understand the basic flaw in the current GPL system
Please, generalizing is not giving interesting matters.
I don’t know where you’re from, but european people should have a lot of respect to some OSS organisations that fight against software patents (see http://www.ffii.org/ )
And what about GPL3 ? What I’ve heard it’s going to integrate the notion of patents.
Thank you for quoting ffii, I get my information from them too. FFII has been highly critical of IBM’s patent policies and specifically talk about how IBM is unwilling to use linux themselves because of patent risks. FFII and I both quoted IBM exec Strassemeyer’s interview in the past.
The issue is NOT about how you should give respect to those who are fighting against software patents. As far as GPL3 — it’s a long way off and linus himself specifically limited linux to GPL2 only.
The issue is that given the current fracture legal environment towards software patents in europe and in US; and given the GPL2’s weakness in its patent stance — IBM and Microsoft are the only companies that have a comprehensive OSS strategies.
For example if you look at HP, they started off with making a linux disribution themselves. Then HP negotiated with Microsoft on cross-licensing and HP legal department found out from those negotiations about the linux patent issue. HP legal department told HP executives that HP themselves SHOULDN’T massively get into the linux business WITHOUT doing a comprehensive review on this issue. HP’s internal review resulted in the famous 2002 memo (that was leaked to the public in 2004). Soon after the 2002 memo, HP decided to stop making their own linux distribution. Parallel events occured at SUN — getting in and out of the linux distribution business.
Do HP and SUN look to have some sort of a comprehensive OSS strategy? No.
I have some tiny experience with VMware. I know it can allow me to run multiple OS’s on a single box, so long as I’ve got plenty of RAM.
Where does hypervisor technology fit in? When I’m shopping around for a host and want to run the OS of my choice in as a virtual server? When I’m on my desktop box and want to switch between multiple concurrently-running OS’s? Who does this announcement affect most?