Comments on: Suse Linux virtualized on Windows--why?
Virtualization changes the way we deploy and manage servers. Microsoft needs to get all of the OS vendors to interoperate with Windows to stay competitive.
Virtualization changes the way we deploy and manage servers. Microsoft needs to get all of the OS vendors to interoperate with Windows to stay competitive.
Although Redmond's foray into retail bears a big resemblance to Apple's approach, Microsoft has added some distinctive features to draw casual PC buyers and techies alike.
Verizon and Motorola are spending big bucks--$100 million--on marketing the new smartphone, and it looks like it will pay off with 1 million devices sold by year's end.
In "Software, Interrupted," Dave Rosenberg discusses disruption in the software market, as well as the products and services that keep business technology norms in perpetual flux.
With nearly 15 years of technology and marketing experience spanning from Bell Labs to multiple start-up IPOs, Dave co-founded open-source software company MuleSource and now serves as general manager of Hardy Way. He also happens to be a U.S. patent holder and a workaholic. Technology is his best friend and mortal enemy.
Add this feed to your online news reader
First you deride the interoperability of SuSE and Microsoft within
each others virtualization technologies (yet somehow manage to
say that Red Hat is making "huge strides" in virtualization when
Novell and Red Hat use the same Xen virtualization technology)
and then you go on to say that it's about time they started making
things work together.
If you think that companies should be making their software work
together, then why do you deride Suse as fading from relevance
outside of MS?
Which is it?
SAP recommends Suse for customers that want to run SAP on Linux,
does this mean that Suse has fading relevance outside of SAP?
What are these "huge strides" Red Hat and Sun are making?
How about some numbers showing the poor performance of Hyper-V
compared to other solutions that you allude to?
Your statements are all rhetoric and no substance.
Please posit some insight rather than simply derision for a decision that is not made by dummies...
Please earn your paycheck.
- by JPerlow September 14, 2008 6:15 AM PDT
- dave:
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(13 Comments)As a fellow CNET/ZDNET blogger and Open Source advocate I have to to say I am totally unimpressed by the lack of technical merit in your analysis. This may be Negative Approach, but throwing innacuracies out just for the sake of it and without adequately researching the subject doesn't do any of our readers a favor. Lets start with the analogy:
""Linux running in a VM on top of a MS host platform..because everyone wants to put their Corvette on top of a skateboard.""
I realize you come from a software development background and may not understand the finer points of virtualization, but in a hypervisor, you are, ahem, NOT RUNNING ON WINDOWS. EVER. Your guest OS is being abstracted. It doesn't matter what OS is residing in Domain0 as the "parent". The parent is being used as a pass-thru layer for driver support only.
Microsoft's Hyper-V is architecturally identical to Xen and was designed in cooperation with XenSource. It is a bare-metal Type1 hypervisor, and is one of the highest performing bare-metal hypervisors on the market today. It is even higher performing in terms of raw IOPS than VMWare ESX and has vastly superior hardware support. It may be sour grapes that it happens to come from Microsoft, but the truth of the matter is, when SUSE linux is running with the 64-bit hypercall adapter on it, its significantly faster than when running on ESX with VMWare's paravirtualized drivers. If we're putting a Corvette on a skateboard, its a giant carbon fiber skateboard made by Scaled Composites with two solid rocket boosters attached to it.
Jason
http://blogs.zdnet.com/perlow