Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> ____/ BearItAll on Wednesday 27 June 2007 11:55 : \____
>
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> Microsoft's anti-virtualization stance: forget DRM, think Apple
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | Microsoft, I suspect, is terrified of a world in which standard,
>>> | Joe-Consumer Windows can be virtualized and made to play second fiddle
>>> | to Mac OS X, or even (say) Ubuntu Linux. No longer does Joe Consumer
>>> | view the computing world as Windows versus all. Instead it begins to
>>> | look like Windows versus Windows + alternative OSes.
>>> `----
>>>
>>>
>>
>
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070624-microsofts-anti-virtualization-stance-forget-drm-think-apple.html
>>> http://tinyurl.com/2e6tpu
>>>
>>> The article is focused on Apple. In reality, ot's not about Apple, but
>>> also about Linux. Apple users and investors might live in a bubble. No
>>> school, datacenter, or government is moving to Mac OS just for fancy
>>> graphics and excellent design.
>>>
>>
>> To be fair to MS it was MS that put in the work to make a virtualiseable
>> XP for Linux. so MS are not totally against this technology, either when
>> it comes to virtualising Debian (and others) in a MS VM or the other way
>> around.
>>
>> Ok so they probably would rather Vista was a VM host than a VM client,
>> but for XP they seem to be playing the game fairly in this area and
>> presumably are doing the same with their servers.
>>
>> In the end though do we really mind who is hosting, so long as its a
>> stable host.
>>
>> I don't know if MS VM will prove as stable as UNIX/Linux hosted VM, but
>> they are getting some good write ups in this area, the list of tested
>> Linux systems is huge. MS have no real choice, web hosts have been going
>> the way of VM machines for a while now, it is better for them and their
>> customers for many reasons, MS have to play this game too.
>
> You can run Linux virtualised under Vista Home Edition (server aside for
> the moment, as Longhorn, AKA Server 2008, is a mess that led to dropping
> of very basic virtualisation features). On the other hand, you need
> expensive Vista licences (no OEM 'discounts' here) in order to make Linux
> the host. As I said to Rex earlier, Microsoft totally bends Novell's arm
> on this one. It's rather disturbing to watch.
>
> At the end of the day, what would you want to virtualise Vista for?
> Windows XP supports /far/ more applications and it is being patched more
> regularly. I think Microsoft understands this. Combined with the problems
> in Server 2008, the company has many reason to panic at this stage.
>
I don't have a reason to virtualise any Windows, but some will want it,
others will maybe need it eventually.
Take the Linux effect, another area where Linux is leaps and bounds ahead of
MS.
We can go to almost any UNIX/Linux host, pick a virtual machine and get a
choice from several of the OS's, mine offers a choice of 5 distros. The
list caters for different tastes enough that there wouldn't really be a
need to extend that list.
Debian,Ubuntu,CentOS,Fedora,Gentoo (basically one of each main family)
Then in the virtual machine you get to do anything you want to do, it's
basically your own server, so as well as a host for your web pages, you
have a data store and remote applications server (if your host allows for
that sort of extra traffic, it might be charged as an extra which is
reasonable for this).
This area will expand, because it has so much potential.
Just as we select a Linux VM, there will be some that choose a Windows style
VM, we have to allow them the choice.
|
|
