Microsoft to 'host' Linux virtually

Microsoft will support customers who choose to run Linux with Microsoft's Virtual Server 2005 R2, which is software for running multiple operating systems on one machine.

In addition, the company on Monday said that it has now made Virtual Server 2005 R2 a free download. The company had charged either $99 for up to four physical processors or $199 for an unlimited number of processors. The announcements were made in conjunction with the LinuxWorld conference in Boston this week.

Virtualization, an emerging technology that is garnering growing interest from corporate customers, allows a server to run multiple instances of an operating system. This makes it easier for corporations to consolidate many applications on a single hardware server and provides a level of reliability.

At the LinuxWorld conference, virtualization is an important theme. Start-ups Virtual Iron and XenSource, which sells support for open-source software Xen, this week are expected to discuss their strategies to go after market leader VMWare.

Similarly, Microsoft's decision to offer a free download of its Virtual Server 2005 R2--which cost as much as $999 in December--reflects the heated competition among virtualization software providers.

"What choice did (Microsoft) have? People can now download VMware's competing hosted virtualization product, VMware Server, for free. That leaves little place for a less mature Microsoft product that also costs more," said Gordon Haff, an analyst at Illuminata.

"That upcoming versions of Xen will support Windows guests on x86 processors with VT (from Intel) and Pacifica technology (from Advanced Micro Devices) adds an exclamation point," he said.

In addition to facing off against EMC subsidiary VMWare, Microsoft is increasingly seeing competition from Xen, which is being built into forthcoming versions of Suse Linux Enterprise Server and Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Microsoft said that it has developed software to simplify the installation of Linux distributions from Red Hat and Novell Suse, so they will run on Virtual Server 2005 R2 on Windows. In addition, Microsoft will provide technical support to customers running Windows and Linux side by side.

The company said it has written "add-in" software for nine recent versions of Red Hat's server and Novell's Suse Linux.

Zane Adam, director of Windows Server product marketing, said Monday that Microsoft intends to deepen its investments in virtualization. Windows Hypervisor, which he said will be released in the "Longhorn server wave," will allow multiple operating systems to run on a single machine.

"We've said that our Hypervisor will be part of the operating system. If you take that view, we signaled the ability for virtualization to be free," Adam said.

Longhorn Server is slated to be completed in 2007, and the company is expected to have a follow-on service pack and then a more substantial update, called "R2." Adam said Windows Hypervisor would be included in one of those three releases.

He added that Microsoft has changed its licensing practices to better address several instances of an operating system on one machine. And Microsoft has published, royalty-free, a specification called Virtual Hard Disk to let third parties write management and security products for all of its virtualization software.

To provide support for customers running Linux and Windows on the same machine Microsoft has contracted with Indian service company Wipro Technologies, which will handle calls, Adam said.

[CentrOS]

Such an obvious lock-in being created

So, you use MS's virtualisation technology, so now you can keep <br />runing all your Linux stuff, and then in 5 years MS discontinues the <br />virtualisation sw, leaving you with no choice but to switch over to <br />Windows only or purchase new hardware to run Linux. Very very <br />clever Balmer. When are you going to resign?

[JulesLt]

Nonsense

Or you switch to one of the other commercial virtualisation <br />technologies or one of the two open-source projects, which will <br />(by then) built into most Linux distributions. Wheras your OS-X <br />server will be technically able to do the same, but without <br />support from Apple (at least so fat).<br />(Or as you say, get some new hardware. A Mac Mini would <br />probably do).<br /><br />I'm typing this on a Mac - Mac users could do themselves a BIG <br />favour by not feeling the need to bash EVERYTHING Microsoft <br />does.<br /><br />Like politics, you need to see when your 'enemy' has some good <br />ideas and give them credit - you cannot simply define yourself <br />as the opposite. MS understand this lesson well.

[hoopr]

competition

More like - Linux distros are being released with xen, AMD and Intel are both bringing out chips that natively support virtualisation, making it possible to run Windows from virtualisation within linux at no cost (or no cost extra than the support contract you are using if you have one). Suddenly, MS charging for their virtualisation package is not competitive, so they release it at the same price ($0) in the hope that you will at least run linux on windows instead of windows on linux. If they drop support for it, people will simply use linux as the host OS. No problem.

[malynj]

Virtual drive conversion...

Generally you can convert most virtual drives from one virtualization product to another. In cases where you cannot, just pull out something like Ghost, and you can migrate your image from one virtualization technology to the other. <br /><br />Each virtualization vendor generally has 'physical to virtual' conversion tools, its just a matter of using those same tools to convert 'virtual to virtual' should any one vendor drop out.<br /><br />EMC's VMWare GSX Server is already moving to free (the free edition in beta now, but it appears will stay free after beta), and there is Xen project which is also free. So its not that there was much choice on setting a price.

[Zymurgist]

What?!

Discontinue virtualization software? Buy new hardware to run Linux? Neither makes any sense at all.<br /><br />Microsoft has no incentive to get rid of virtualization -- ever. It's a feature every other vendor provides, there are third party virtualization packages that run under Windows (and based on features, still far ahead), and, frankly it adds value to their OS product where there's compartively little (and less each day).<br /><br />As for Linux... Why would you buy new hardware to run Linux? Just convert the Windows box to run Linux. IT supports the same hardware, typically better (particularly for servers) and, if you have legacy Windows apps, you can run them in a VM under Linux (or use the Windows version of the app; and some Windows apps will run directly on top of Linux without Windows).<br /><br />This is one situation where I don't think there's any looming threat of lock-in.

[172pilot]

Whatever...

There are plenty of reasons to bash MS that could be argued, but you implying that there's some "master plan" that MS has bought the VPC technology from Connectix just to give it to you for free, so that as you say "in 5 years" you'll be in a dead-end technology, is just the stupidist thing I've read... <br /><br />You give MAC users a bad name.. :-)

[SystemsJunky]

Ignorance / Arrogance

First of all, Most companies that do virtualize dont a have a single system running for more than 3 years. Second of all, You talk about being locked in. How about crApple screwing its customers every chance it gets. Changing power cords, Architectures, Blowing off customers who have spend millions of dollars on software and are now forced to "cross-grade" which isnt always free. How about crApple just killing its older OS's with no warning? I could go on, But you get the point...

[CentrOS]

Such an obvious lock-in being created

So, you use MS's virtualisation technology, so now you can keep <br />runing all your Linux stuff, and then in 5 years MS discontinues the <br />virtualisation sw, leaving you with no choice but to switch over to <br />Windows only or purchase new hardware to run Linux. Very very <br />clever Balmer. When are you going to resign?

[JulesLt]

Nonsense

Or you switch to one of the other commercial virtualisation <br />technologies or one of the two open-source projects, which will <br />(by then) built into most Linux distributions. Wheras your OS-X <br />server will be technically able to do the same, but without <br />support from Apple (at least so fat).<br />(Or as you say, get some new hardware. A Mac Mini would <br />probably do).<br /><br />I'm typing this on a Mac - Mac users could do themselves a BIG <br />favour by not feeling the need to bash EVERYTHING Microsoft <br />does.<br /><br />Like politics, you need to see when your 'enemy' has some good <br />ideas and give them credit - you cannot simply define yourself <br />as the opposite. MS understand this lesson well.

[hoopr]

competition

More like - Linux distros are being released with xen, AMD and Intel are both bringing out chips that natively support virtualisation, making it possible to run Windows from virtualisation within linux at no cost (or no cost extra than the support contract you are using if you have one). Suddenly, MS charging for their virtualisation package is not competitive, so they release it at the same price ($0) in the hope that you will at least run linux on windows instead of windows on linux. If they drop support for it, people will simply use linux as the host OS. No problem.

[malynj]

Virtual drive conversion...

Generally you can convert most virtual drives from one virtualization product to another. In cases where you cannot, just pull out something like Ghost, and you can migrate your image from one virtualization technology to the other. <br /><br />Each virtualization vendor generally has 'physical to virtual' conversion tools, its just a matter of using those same tools to convert 'virtual to virtual' should any one vendor drop out.<br /><br />EMC's VMWare GSX Server is already moving to free (the free edition in beta now, but it appears will stay free after beta), and there is Xen project which is also free. So its not that there was much choice on setting a price.

[Zymurgist]

What?!

Discontinue virtualization software? Buy new hardware to run Linux? Neither makes any sense at all.<br /><br />Microsoft has no incentive to get rid of virtualization -- ever. It's a feature every other vendor provides, there are third party virtualization packages that run under Windows (and based on features, still far ahead), and, frankly it adds value to their OS product where there's compartively little (and less each day).<br /><br />As for Linux... Why would you buy new hardware to run Linux? Just convert the Windows box to run Linux. IT supports the same hardware, typically better (particularly for servers) and, if you have legacy Windows apps, you can run them in a VM under Linux (or use the Windows version of the app; and some Windows apps will run directly on top of Linux without Windows).<br /><br />This is one situation where I don't think there's any looming threat of lock-in.

[172pilot]

Whatever...

There are plenty of reasons to bash MS that could be argued, but you implying that there's some "master plan" that MS has bought the VPC technology from Connectix just to give it to you for free, so that as you say "in 5 years" you'll be in a dead-end technology, is just the stupidist thing I've read... <br /><br />You give MAC users a bad name.. :-)

[SystemsJunky]

Ignorance / Arrogance

First of all, Most companies that do virtualize dont a have a single system running for more than 3 years. Second of all, You talk about being locked in. How about crApple screwing its customers every chance it gets. Changing power cords, Architectures, Blowing off customers who have spend millions of dollars on software and are now forced to "cross-grade" which isnt always free. How about crApple just killing its older OS's with no warning? I could go on, But you get the point...

[Zymurgist]

That's nice.

Why SuSe? I mean Novell's product is pretty good, but the typical IT shop would probably prefer RedHat. I mean, most vendors shipping Linux software specify that it is tested and certified for RedHat. Not that others won't work, but vendors aren't apt to test for different distributions and include whatever software packages or libraries their products depend on.<br /><br />It's a good idea though. For some Windows shops, it will provide an simple way to test Linux. One would hope that they'll realize the performance penalty the VM and Windows host OS will incur, but it's a start.<br /><br />If you knew you were going to be running both, I'd presume that you'd either use Linux as the host and Windows as the guest or have two machines, however.

[gnotellaluvr]

Re-read the article

The article specificall states that they said Red Hat or SUSE. Not just SUSE.<br /><br />One more thing that the article said is that it is being offered as a free download. I cannot find a free version anywhere on their site.

[eye2fun]

Novell Suse? Redhat? Novell Best!

Novell has been in the server business for years and were the original buyers and developers of Unix from AT&#38;T. Novell has always had their own Unix and Linux systems for the Server Market. They're still collecting royalities from SCO, who they sold Unix to in the mid 90's. <br /><br />They purchased Suse in order to push their way into the consummer and small server market. The Xen Program is now bundled into the new release of Suse. And under the Open Source License it must be offered for free. But that doesn't stop them from selling some of their software that runs on Linux to these same Suse people or building in and developing the Novell quality into their Suse product.<br /><br />Contrary to What you Say:<br />The typical IT shop would actually prefer Novell. Who've been in this server market for many years longer than Redhat. So it depends on whether you can afford Novell (or Redhat for that matter), or you're a small operation and maybe a Non-Profit one, with little cash to fork over for the others.

[eye2fun]

Novell Suse? Redhat? Novell Best!

Novell has been in the server business for years and were the original buyers and developers of Unix from AT&#38;T. Novell has always had their own Unix and Linux systems for the Server Market. They're still collecting royalities from SCO, who they sold Unix to in the mid 90's. <br /><br />They purchased Suse in order to push their way into the consummer and small server market. The Xen Program is now bundled into the new release of Suse. And under the Open Source License it must be offered for free. But that doesn't stop them from selling some of their software that runs on Linux to these same Suse people or building in and developing the Novell quality into their Suse product.<br /><br />Contrary to What you Say:<br />The typical IT shop would actually prefer Novell. Who've been in this server market for many years longer than Redhat. So it depends on whether you can afford Novell (or Redhat for that matter), or you're a small operation and maybe a Non-Profit one, with little cash to fork over for the others.

[Zymurgist]

That's nice.

Why SuSe? I mean Novell's product is pretty good, but the typical IT shop would probably prefer RedHat. I mean, most vendors shipping Linux software specify that it is tested and certified for RedHat. Not that others won't work, but vendors aren't apt to test for different distributions and include whatever software packages or libraries their products depend on.<br /><br />It's a good idea though. For some Windows shops, it will provide an simple way to test Linux. One would hope that they'll realize the performance penalty the VM and Windows host OS will incur, but it's a start.<br /><br />If you knew you were going to be running both, I'd presume that you'd either use Linux as the host and Windows as the guest or have two machines, however.

[gnotellaluvr]

Re-read the article

The article specificall states that they said Red Hat or SUSE. Not just SUSE.<br /><br />One more thing that the article said is that it is being offered as a free download. I cannot find a free version anywhere on their site.

[eye2fun]

Novell Suse? Redhat? Novell Best!

Novell has been in the server business for years and were the original buyers and developers of Unix from AT&#38;T. Novell has always had their own Unix and Linux systems for the Server Market. They're still collecting royalities from SCO, who they sold Unix to in the mid 90's. <br /><br />They purchased Suse in order to push their way into the consummer and small server market. The Xen Program is now bundled into the new release of Suse. And under the Open Source License it must be offered for free. But that doesn't stop them from selling some of their software that runs on Linux to these same Suse people or building in and developing the Novell quality into their Suse product.<br /><br />Contrary to What you Say:<br />The typical IT shop would actually prefer Novell. Who've been in this server market for many years longer than Redhat. So it depends on whether you can afford Novell (or Redhat for that matter), or you're a small operation and maybe a Non-Profit one, with little cash to fork over for the others.

[eye2fun]

Novell Suse? Redhat? Novell Best!

Novell has been in the server business for years and were the original buyers and developers of Unix from AT&#38;T. Novell has always had their own Unix and Linux systems for the Server Market. They're still collecting royalities from SCO, who they sold Unix to in the mid 90's. <br /><br />They purchased Suse in order to push their way into the consummer and small server market. The Xen Program is now bundled into the new release of Suse. And under the Open Source License it must be offered for free. But that doesn't stop them from selling some of their software that runs on Linux to these same Suse people or building in and developing the Novell quality into their Suse product.<br /><br />Contrary to What you Say:<br />The typical IT shop would actually prefer Novell. Who've been in this server market for many years longer than Redhat. So it depends on whether you can afford Novell (or Redhat for that matter), or you're a small operation and maybe a Non-Profit one, with little cash to fork over for the others.

[fafafooey]

Apple user talking about "lock in" - ROFL!

Pretty funny - Mac users bash MS, yet it's perfectly fine with them that they have only one choice of hardware provider (Apple).

[Earl Benser]

When the hardware is that good.....

.... why not enjoy real quality?????

[open-mind]

Only one choice of hardware provider?

Apple users can buy RAM, drives, cards, printers, displays, etc from many different hardware providers. Not just Apple.<br /><br />Only the CPU/box must come from Apple. As long as Apple remains price competitive (when comparing similar levels of software, features, and quality), I experience no downside to that.<br /><br />Of course, I'm not a gamer, so I don't care about the ability to buy this month's hot video card. For those folks (who would need to buy a G5 tower), the Mac is more expensive, sine Apple doesn't sell low-end towers.

[robertcampbell2]

You're right

And it will be interesting to see how many Mac or Windows users buy Dell's dual boot Mac/Windows machines. Sounds good to me!

[codazoda]

Where's the FREE Download?

Just wondering where the free download is. I went to MS' site and found this:<br /><br />"Get the free, 180-day trial version of Virtual Server 2005 R2"<br /><br />That's not FREE...<br /><br />Joel<br />www.joeldare.com

[SystemsJunky]

Download

It will be there by the end of the week. be patient.

[codazoda]

Where's the FREE Download?

Just wondering where the free download is. I went to MS' site and found this:<br /><br />"Get the free, 180-day trial version of Virtual Server 2005 R2"<br /><br />That's not FREE...<br /><br />Joel<br />www.joeldare.com

[SystemsJunky]

Download

It will be there by the end of the week. be patient.

[qazwiz]

Don't be fooled....

a wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf.<br /><br />Go all Linux and you can get your support cheaper from others... including the (probably) most expensive Linux support company... Red Hat themselves<br /><br />their conferences and support contracts are still cheaper than paying through unmentionable orifices to micro$oft

[rcrusoe]

This is completely backwards

Virtual Windows servers on a Linux host makes perfect sense. Virtual Linux servers on a Windows server doesn't.<br /><br />Who in their right mind would use the least stable operation system as the host?

[jpickett]

Maybe those who only run Windows servers?

That would seem to then make sense I suppose?<br /><br />Linux is fine/great/whatever, but if your Windows server installation isn't stable (sans security patching reboot aka scheduled downtimes) I'd look at the sysadmin or 3rd party software vendor. Most instabilities on our servers I've realized are the 3rd parties who write crappy applications.<br /><br />Not to say MS doesn't have their problems, I certainly get frustrated with them quite often, but out of all the Windows servers I admin, I would consider each and every one "stable".

[Tanjore]

Microsoft is doing this so that they will not loose existing customers

Hope this is not vaporware. Microsoft is doing this so that they will not loose existing customers. This will let windows server customers, to check out linux in conjunction with windows. Potentially this will make windows server a great integration platform and may be customers will benifit.

[Tanjore]

Microsoft is doing this so that they will not loose existing customers

Hope this is not vaporware. Microsoft is doing this so that they will not loose existing customers. This will let windows server customers, to check out linux in conjunction with windows. Potentially this will make windows server a great integration platform and may be customers will benifit.

[hawkeyeaz1]

Now free?

That reminds me of IE v Netscape. MS started <br />giving IE away free in order to destroy <br />Netscape, and unfortunately it worked. <br /> <br />However, this time around, there is more <br />compettition, and the compettition is largely <br />using free/open source software, so the need for <br />money isn't as great for a lot of them. VMWare <br />is one of the few proprietary companies, and <br />they might feel the pressure, but I think due to <br />their methods of supporting the FOSS community <br />(even if they don't participate), I think they <br />will survive. Though they may have to join the <br />FOSS community to do so. <br /> <br />So, in this instance, the consumer wins on this <br />point, and MS won't see this kill their <br />compettition, as that is probably their intent.

[aabcdefghij987654321]

Netscape died because of bad management

Even a couple years after MS first offered a "free" browser people refered to the browser as "Netscape" (even those who were using IE would often call it Netscape).<br /><br />The reason Netscape died is because their browser code stank. It made IE look like a paragon of stability and security which means they code was truly awful. The Netscape management realized that but they kept changing their plan on how they were going to deal with it (rewrite the code, no lets build a new browser in Java, nope lets make it open-source and spin off a group to rewrite it after all but lets not fund that group very well since they've got a daunting task ahead of them).<br /><br />Ultimately we got Firefox as a result of all that (which is a good thing) but the timeframes involved became so long that IE had several years of obviously being a much better browser than the unchanging Netscape browser that most people migrated to IE.<br /><br />Yes, I know there's a lot of people who would claim that the old Netscape browser was better that IE but from a web developer's perspective IE 4.0 had a much more complete and correct implementation of html and css plus a better planned DOM. BTW, those are the same reasons I'm still hoping Firefox continues to keep growing it's market share :).

[hawkeyeaz1]

Now free?

That reminds me of IE v Netscape. MS started <br />giving IE away free in order to destroy <br />Netscape, and unfortunately it worked. <br /> <br />However, this time around, there is more <br />compettition, and the compettition is largely <br />using free/open source software, so the need for <br />money isn't as great for a lot of them. VMWare <br />is one of the few proprietary companies, and <br />they might feel the pressure, but I think due to <br />their methods of supporting the FOSS community <br />(even if they don't participate), I think they <br />will survive. Though they may have to join the <br />FOSS community to do so. <br /> <br />So, in this instance, the consumer wins on this <br />point, and MS won't see this kill their <br />compettition, as that is probably their intent.

[aabcdefghij987654321]

Netscape died because of bad management

Even a couple years after MS first offered a "free" browser people refered to the browser as "Netscape" (even those who were using IE would often call it Netscape).<br /><br />The reason Netscape died is because their browser code stank. It made IE look like a paragon of stability and security which means they code was truly awful. The Netscape management realized that but they kept changing their plan on how they were going to deal with it (rewrite the code, no lets build a new browser in Java, nope lets make it open-source and spin off a group to rewrite it after all but lets not fund that group very well since they've got a daunting task ahead of them).<br /><br />Ultimately we got Firefox as a result of all that (which is a good thing) but the timeframes involved became so long that IE had several years of obviously being a much better browser than the unchanging Netscape browser that most people migrated to IE.<br /><br />Yes, I know there's a lot of people who would claim that the old Netscape browser was better that IE but from a web developer's perspective IE 4.0 had a much more complete and correct implementation of html and css plus a better planned DOM. BTW, those are the same reasons I'm still hoping Firefox continues to keep growing it's market share :).

[thanhvn]

Windows has an easier time moving onto Linux's turf (i.e. servers) ...

... than Linux moving onto Window's turf (i.e. desktops). I think that's how Microsoft is thinking and why it is willing to do this. Just my 2cents.

[Zymurgist]

I don't think so.

You wouldn't be running Linux on a Windows VM <br />unless you were already using Windows servers. <br /> <br />What Microsoft is thinking is that if you are <br />tempted to use Linux, they can permit you to do <br />so while still selling you Windows. Frankly, <br />they don't really care if you use a Linux in a <br />VM. It's better that you do that than simply <br />download a copy and replace a Windows server <br />with it. <br /> <br />The idea is that, yeah, you're running Linux, <br />but at least your paying them to do it. That's <br />still better than you using Linux and not paying <br />them to do it. I'm sure that they are hoping <br />that you will satisfied with it enough to keep <br />Linux on Windows rather than running Linux <br />natively. And one could only hope that by using <br />the VM, if you do switch to Linux, you'll <br />remember that you can run Windows under Linux <br />and still pay them a license (maybe even more <br />than one) for running Windows under Linux. <br /> <br />They risk for them is, of course, that people <br />that wouldn't otherwise try Linux would do, find <br />it superior, and switch. That's not likely to <br />happen. Those same people typically don't have <br />skills transposable to Linux or experience with <br />it (by definition, they are still using Windows <br />mostly), the VM performance will be <br />substantially lower than a native installation, <br />and the VM stability will be considerably lower <br />than a native install as well (pct uptime Linux <br />in VM = pct uptime Linux * pct uptime VM * pct <br />uptime Windows). Put together, it's a low risk <br />for precipitating a wholesale migration.

[KeithCash]

Microsoft in Unix business again

It is glad to here that Microsoft is back in the Unix business.<br /><br />I hope to see more of this. Remeber Xenix???

[thanhvn]

Windows has an easier time moving onto Linux's turf (i.e. servers) ...

... than Linux moving onto Window's turf (i.e. desktops). I think that's how Microsoft is thinking and why it is willing to do this. Just my 2cents.

[KeithCash]

Microsoft in Unix business again

It is glad to here that Microsoft is back in the Unix business.<br /><br />I hope to see more of this. Remeber Xenix???

[Zymurgist]

I don't think so.

You wouldn't be running Linux on a Windows VM <br />unless you were already using Windows servers. <br /> <br />What Microsoft is thinking is that if you are <br />tempted to use Linux, they can permit you to do <br />so while still selling you Windows. Frankly, <br />they don't really care if you use a Linux in a <br />VM. It's better that you do that than simply <br />download a copy and replace a Windows server <br />with it. <br /> <br />The idea is that, yeah, you're running Linux, <br />but at least your paying them to do it. That's <br />still better than you using Linux and not paying <br />them to do it. I'm sure that they are hoping <br />that you will satisfied with it enough to keep <br />Linux on Windows rather than running Linux <br />natively. And one could only hope that by using <br />the VM, if you do switch to Linux, you'll <br />remember that you can run Windows under Linux <br />and still pay them a license (maybe even more <br />than one) for running Windows under Linux. <br /> <br />They risk for them is, of course, that people <br />that wouldn't otherwise try Linux would do, find <br />it superior, and switch. That's not likely to <br />happen. Those same people typically don't have <br />skills transposable to Linux or experience with <br />it (by definition, they are still using Windows <br />mostly), the VM performance will be <br />substantially lower than a native installation, <br />and the VM stability will be considerably lower <br />than a native install as well (pct uptime Linux <br />in VM = pct uptime Linux * pct uptime VM * pct <br />uptime Windows). Put together, it's a low risk <br />for precipitating a wholesale migration.

[BraveErudite]

All bow to the Penguin... Bill Gates knows he can't Linux

Do not support this feature, Water &#38; Oil will never mix.

[BraveErudite]

All bow to the Penguin... Bill Gates knows he can't Linux

Do not support this feature, Water &#38; Oil will never mix.

[Llib Setag]

MS Eyes Locked & the MS Shark's cirling the Penquin...

Keep your friends close &#38; your enemies closer...The Godfather.<br /><br />Citizen Gates &#38; Big Brother Baldy are circling the Penquin while <br />acting as a "friend" to keep the customers from jumping ship &#38; <br />make the "appearance" of being a good neighbor for the US DOJ <br />&#38; EU Judges anti-trust monopoly cases...<br /><br />" See, we can play nice nice with others, don't fine us millions of <br />dollars..." DOJ is watching &#38; EU is pending penalties very shortly.<br /><br />AstalaVista has tanked AGAIN on it's features &#38; delivery date, so <br />snuggle up to Linux Penquin just before the Linux event to keep <br />the MS Drones from switching to Unix / Linux / Mac OSX Unix.<br /><br />micro-soft needs viagra &#38; Darth Gates will do anything to <br />maintain his Microsith Empire.

[benjiernmd]

Microsith Empire?

Looks more like Microshit to me! I am definitely not going into this <br />kind of crap.

[Llib Setag]

MS Eyes Locked & the MS Shark's cirling the Penquin...

Keep your friends close &#38; your enemies closer...The Godfather.<br /><br />Citizen Gates &#38; Big Brother Baldy are circling the Penquin while <br />acting as a "friend" to keep the customers from jumping ship &#38; <br />make the "appearance" of being a good neighbor for the US DOJ <br />&#38; EU Judges anti-trust monopoly cases...<br /><br />" See, we can play nice nice with others, don't fine us millions of <br />dollars..." DOJ is watching &#38; EU is pending penalties very shortly.<br /><br />AstalaVista has tanked AGAIN on it's features &#38; delivery date, so <br />snuggle up to Linux Penquin just before the Linux event to keep <br />the MS Drones from switching to Unix / Linux / Mac OSX Unix.<br /><br />micro-soft needs viagra &#38; Darth Gates will do anything to <br />maintain his Microsith Empire.

[benjiernmd]

Microsith Empire?

Looks more like Microshit to me! I am definitely not going into this <br />kind of crap.

[eye2fun]

Microsoft Is Still Wearing Virtual Diapers!

What is not mentioned here is that Microsoft has granted support to XenSoft VM in order for them to run Windows as a Virtual Machine. This is because VMWare already has built-in support for Windows VM , Linux, Unix, OS-X, etc. If your still in diapers you best team up with the older kid to try to knock the Big Guy out of the driver's seat. XenSoft is in a better position to do some damage in this field than Microsoft. And as with everything coming out of Redmond, WA. these days, their newest Revision has been pushed back till next year. So since they can't get in the fight just yet, they're goating XenSoft into the ring to do some damage against VMWare.<br /><br />VMWare owns this field, through years of having the most stable virtual machines in ComputerLand (including the server market). But in the past they have had no competion until more recently with the likes of XenSoft (Open Source) and Microsoft's 2005 Rev2 setups. XenSoft is what pushed VMWare to offer their base product for free. Microsoft has been forced to offer their product (which is behind in features and still wet behind the ears) for free as well. <br /><br />What is Virtualization?<br />Well it is a program that allows many different installations of operating systems to run on one computer "At the Same Time"! For servers this is very important. It means you can isolate server tasks to a dedicated portion of the processor and memory use. Like having many servers using just one machine. For home use you can do your tax's on a Linux VM (virtual machine) install, switch back to Windows to play a game without rebooting or using another machine, plus running a media ripping Linux installation. For security it great as one Virtual Machine may crash, but it won't crash the computer or server.