Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

401 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Really, now... (5, Funny)

TechnoGuyRob (926031) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053767)

That does it, Slashdot. April Fools is OVER.

Re:Really, now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15053810)

April fools lasts all month around here.

Re:Really, now... (3, Funny)

slo_learner (729232) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053821)

April fools is over on May 1 or when we run out of fools, which ever comes first.

Re:Really, now... (3, Funny)

kimvette (919543) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053846)

All you had to say was May 1. :)

In related news (2, Funny)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 8 years ago | (#15054004)

dogs and cats where found living together while mass hysteria ensued.

Re:Really, now... (1)

stunt_penguin (906223) | more than 8 years ago | (#15054116)

Heh, but the stories on slashdot are typically a few days behind. There'll be a dupe along in 3.......2........1..

wow, more echoes from the past (5, Insightful)

yagu (721525) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053769)

Unless I'm missing something here, this action on Microsoft's part is reminiscent of their "response" to Netscape when Microsoft finally recognized they had fallen way behind in an important market.

And, unless I'm missing something again, I think Microsoft still qualifies as a legally defined "monopoly", and this looks like leveraging their monopoly to unfairly skew market forces and competition.

And, unless I'm mistaken, this should be illegal.

(As an aside, interestingly enough, I was surprised to find Microsoft's virtual server technology STILL does not offer hypervisor services... to give some perspective as to how far behind that puts them in "getting it", I worked on virtualized VM boxes on IBM 360 mainframes in school back in the mid-70s! These systems were implemented with hypervisor. Wow!)

(Caveat: For those of you with home systems with XP Home Edition, this virtual server doesn't come free -- you'll need to flip for the $100 XP Professional upgrade.)

(Caveat II: I don't always completely trust stories from the Register as I find them a little over-the-top in their anti-Microsoft rhetoric. However I was able to verify the Microsoft Virtual Server IS available for free download.)

Re:wow, more echoes from the past (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15053819)

And, unless I'm mistaken, this should be illegal.

You're mistaken. That's not how anti-trust law (in the US works). The question is whether consumers are harmed, not competitors. You can make a case that killing VMWare would be bad for consumers in the long run, but that'd be difficult to show today.

Re:wow, more echoes from the past (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15053829)

you mean, you paid for home edition? no, you paid for windows?

what a chump

Re:wow, more echoes from the past (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15053831)


And, unless I'm missing something again, I think Microsoft still qualifies as a legally defined "monopoly", and this looks like leveraging their monopoly to unfairly skew market forces and competition.

And, unless I'm mistaken, this should be illegal.



I thought so too, but it also seems that VMWare started the price war when they started giving away VMWare Player. Microsoft may be able to fairly say that they are just reacting to pricing in the market,

Re:wow, more echoes from the past (2, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053906)


I thought so too, but it also seems that VMWare started the price war when they started giving away VMWare Player.


Which arguably they wouldn't do in a competitive operating system market.

Re:wow, more echoes from the past (4, Informative)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 8 years ago | (#15054010)

Not just VMWare player. VMWare server is free as well (though still in beta at the moment, it is supposed to be free when finished)

Re:wow, more echoes from the past (1)

booch (4157) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053832)

Definitely. VMware would be foolish not to file a lawsuit against Microsoft for leveraging its monopoly in operating systems to gain an advantage in virtualization software.

Re:wow, more echoes from the past (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15053851)

MS has very little to loose. As they are putting this INTO vista. They have stated this many times.

Re:wow, more echoes from the past (2, Funny)

schon (31600) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053919)

MS has very little to loose.

I disagree. Vista is a monster of Godzilla proportions, and if they loosed that on the world, they could wreak some major damage.

MS has a lot to loose, and they have nothing to lose by doing it!

Re:wow, more echoes from the past (2, Insightful)

Null Nihils (965047) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053928)

And, unless I'm mistaken, this should be illegal.

Funny, most F/OSS software is given away for free, should that be illegal too? To answer my own question: of course not! The situation is quite different. However, I'm willing to bet the situations arising from Microsoft's "free" offerings and the "Free" Software movement look the same in the minds of certain lawmakers/enforcers (and if this were true, this would not be a Good Thing).

Let's hope we keep our freedom to give things away for free!

Mark Parent Troll (0)

sinner0423 (687266) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053936)

This isn't illegal, it's business.

And Hi, it's The Register - what's wrong with you? I'm even wearing my little vulture logo shirt as I type this, they aren't evil, they're brits - there is a difference.

Re:wow, more echoes from the past (5, Interesting)

jthill (303417) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053980)

They didn't start this [vmware.com] . VMware have $0.00'd a midrange VM server. Works real nice.

It's the "supporting Linux" part that gives me the giggles. Believe anything out of a Microsoft mouth on the subject of Linux? The giggles are getting uncontrollable.

They may not be in trouble, but they're definitely having to do things they'd very much rather not do.

Re:wow, more echoes from the past (2, Informative)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053999)

As an aside, interestingly enough, I was surprised to find Microsoft's virtual server technology STILL does not offer hypervisor services... to give some perspective as to how far behind that puts them in "getting it", I worked on virtualized VM boxes on IBM 360 mainframes in school back in the mid-70s! These systems were implemented with hypervisor. Wow!

It wouldn't be virtualization if it didn't have hypervisor services. Maybe you're talking about hardware virtualization, which was just added by Intel, so it was somewhat difficult for Microsoft to support this before.

Re:wow, more echoes from the past (3, Insightful)

killjoe (766577) | more than 8 years ago | (#15054000)

It's a little bit different. In the netscape their aim was to "cut off the airsupply" of netscape by giving away a free browser. In this case they are simply reacting to the fact that RedHat, Novell, IBM etc can now offer XEN out of the box with better performance and scalibility then anything MS has.

What's great about this announcement is that MS paid lots of money for virtual server and now they are forced to not only give it away for free but also provide support for it. That's millions of dollars down the drain for MS, money that could have gone to research, lobbying, advertising, PR, or even given back to the shareholders. Money down the drain, bad for MS, good for the rest of the world.

Is all this legal? Well probably. To be honest in a very real sense it's dumping. No company without a monopoly and monopoly profits could have afforded to spend that kind of money on virtual server and then give it away AND support it. The only reason MS can do it is because they have two established monopolies and they can use the obcene profits they make from their monopolies to fund money losing schemes like this (and virtually every other piece of software they hawk). In a pure market economy this could not work.

Re:wow, more echoes from the past (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15054130)

Mod parent fascist.

What kind of free? (4, Insightful)

LunaticTippy (872397) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053773)

Is this free as in beer or free as in screensaver?

I'm guessing it isn't gonna be free as in Free.

Re:What kind of free? (1)

Mozk (844858) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053861)

That's a really good quote. Mind if I steal it from you?

Re:What kind of free? (1)

LunaticTippy (872397) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053934)

You can have it. I don't think I invented it or anything, so don't bother attributing.

Negativland did a really good song about freedom with hilariously sad quotes.

The strongest word is still the word "Free."
At 7-11 freedom's waiting for you.

Re:What kind of free? (1)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053864)

It's free as in soul.

Re:What kind of free? (1)

jdray (645332) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053904)

And what effect does it have on the price of VirtualPC for Macintosh??

Start Making Sense (1)

PhYrE2k2 (806396) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053974)

Start Making Sense Or I'll put you into a home!

Aggressive and surprising? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15053778)

More like desperate. They're only doing this because Xen's eating their lunch.

Xen??? (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053848)

From TFA:

Microsoft has teamed with the developers of the open source Xen product to gang up on server slicing leader VMware.

OK guys, now I'm confused. WTF is going on here? Have the Xen people been bought my Microsoft? :(

Re:Xen??? (2, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053887)

No, Xen has purchased Microsoft in a really, really, REALLY leveraged buyout... oops, it's not April 1 anymore, is it?

Unfortunately, Xen hasn't learned one of the prime lessons of history: partnering with Microsoft is merely the first step towards being put out of business by Microsoft.

Re:Xen??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15053895)

Development of Xen was sponsored by Microsoft Research. This is why the Xen people were able to do a build of Windows XP that ran on Xen (although this isn't publically available).

This news isn't so strange.

Xen isnt eating MS at all.. (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053860)

Last i heard you couldnt virtualize windows with out illegal patching ( since you cant get the source legally to do it )... so xen really isnt hurting microsoft at all.

Now, perhaps they are afraid of QEMU ? Or is that what caused VMware to give away their low end products, and now MS is worried about VMware taking more market share?

Re:Aggressive and surprising? (5, Insightful)

Krach42 (227798) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053909)

More like desperate. They're only doing this because Xen's eating their lunch.

No, it's because the Virtualization market is heating up. And it's likely VMWare that's causing Microsoft to sweat, not Xen, or any F/OSS alternative.

You used to see this back in the day when local, and ma' and pa' shops roamed the earth. For instance, one bakery would have a monopoly in the area, when a new one would pop up, and start undercutting the other's prices. Then they'd retaliate, and you'd end up with a flying storm of lowering prices, until one of them were forced out of business.

At this point, the price would be rock bottom, and the winner, would gradually increase prices until they were making a good profit again, but generally it worked out well for the community that was shopping there.

Of course, the whole problem comes in that to startup a bakery you don't need billions of dollars and years of development to produce your product. Microsoft is now sitting in a practically unchallengable monopoly position. When monopolies hit this point, it's my opinion that controls should be leveraged to ensure that they're not gouging their captive audience.

I would not bother with MSVS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15053967)

I have deployed VMware and MSVS. I have to say MSVS is junk. I won't even bother download the damn things off my MSDN.

Go figure!

in related news... (4, Funny)

clanky (871867) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053786)

microsoft has also started offering its own proprietary air for free, in an attempt to muscle out the Earth's atmosphere from its traditional strength position in the marketplace.

This Move doesn't make any sense to me. (1)

Phantombrain (964010) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053787)

Why would Microsoft give away a product (not making ANY money) and THEN give support for a rival? Microsoft has done a very good job of holding it's monopoly, and now it seems it WILLINGLY giving it up. Something either REALLY fishy is going on, or someone at Microsoft is smoking something.

Re:This Move doesn't make any sense to me. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15053820)

Because Microsoft hopes that poeple will host their virtual servers on Microsoft Windows platforms, even if the guest operating systems run Linux.

Re:This Move doesn't make any sense to me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15053932)

Think a little bit more down the lines.

You have to run Windows to use Virtual Server. Isn't that their big monopoly? This is just another package deal like WMP, IE, et al.

Plus, this is the big bucks enterprise server OS market. Any one of the Server 2003 flavours retail for far more than you could sell Virtual Server for.

Windows and Office (yes, still) are their cash cows. They're doing just fine defending their monopolies.

Re:This Move doesn't make any sense to me. (1)

fatted (777789) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053982)

This is standard issue Microsoft tactics. If someone's doing something interesting simply destroy the market. Heck Microsoft don't have to make money, they've got a gazillion dollars* under the mattress.

*may be slightly less.**

**Not by much though.

Re:This Move doesn't make any sense to me. (1)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053996)

Try some smoked salmon?

well... (-1, Troll)

jaya ballard T.M. (834235) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053788)

I, for one, welcome our new monopolistic software giant overlords. oh, carp! they were already our monopolistic software giant overlords.

Re:well... (3, Funny)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053869)

Shit, why are you bothering me? _I_ knew that.

Upgrade to Windows Vista (4, Funny)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053794)

additionally they will provide customer support for Linux.

And what will their standard answer be? "Upgrade to Windows Vista"?

Excellent! (2, Funny)

Joey Patterson (547891) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053796)

Now I can emulate DOS within Linux inside Mac System 6 on Windows 2000 Professional running in VMWare Workstation running on Windows Vista Interim Build 5342 running on Virtual PC running inside Windows Server 2003 via the Citrix connection on the server at work! w00t!

The article sums it up even better (0, Redundant)

karvind (833059) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053802)

For those who didn't RTFA, the next paragraph says it all

Given these moves, we're reminded of the scene from Spaceballs when Lord Helemt orders an underling to thrust his ship from light speed to ludicrous speed. "Prepare ship, prepare ship for ludicrous speed. Fasten all seat belts, seal all entrances and exits, close all shops in the mall, cancel the 3-ring circus, secure all animals in the zoo..." shouts the underling.

Re:The article sums it up even better (1)

DeDmeTe (678464) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053894)

I believe the "underling" was Col. Sanders.

I will now hold my breath... (2, Funny)

14erCleaner (745600) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053805)

Until the US Justice Department stops this move by Microsoft on anti-trust grounds.

OK, I changed my mind.

VMWare == good (1, Interesting)

tcopeland (32225) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053811)

We use it for testing indi [getindi.com] on a variety of platforms - we've got preconfigured WinME/XP/2K VMs that we can fiddle with. It's great for isolating bugs like "when indi is installed on a Win2K box where Outlook has not been configured, blah happens". Nifty stuff!

Do they support Linux as a Host or just a Guest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15053816)

If it's a Host - COOOL - we're likely to use it!

If it's just a guest OS - who cares - do you really want all the pain of Linux running under all the flakyness and unstability and insecurity of Windows that you'd get by making Windows the host OS?

Microsoft Virtualization is the key to the future (4, Funny)

jimmyhat3939 (931746) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053817)

I'm really glad they're doing this. Other virtualizations systems that I've seen/tried really can't offer the full set of APIs and functionalities that a real Microsoft product offers. For example, things like Wine can't offer the full __DllRegisterExpiryCacheDelayTwelveSeven() functionality.

Same goes for CPU-based stuff, like Virtual-PC. They just don't run Windows properly. The thing is, since Microsoft has the only operating system out there that is largely, or even majority, undocumented, it makes sense for them to provide the virtualization software. That way they can make it work on their own undocumented platform, while using other platforms' APIs to permit easy access to Linux, OSX, etc.

This is a win-win-win for everyone!

Re:Microsoft Virtualization is the key to the futu (2, Informative)

JDevers (83155) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053854)

You are comparing OS level emulators to virtual machines. The competition in this space is VMWare. Using this sort of software, you actually NEED Windows. You boot up a VM and then proceed to install an OS just like a real machine. This is massively unlike Wine and is somewhat different from VPC too.

Also, remember, VM products aren't designed to run the latest and greatest games or something. They are designed to fill two niches, extremely secure testbeds for software where you want crashes to be easy to recover and server virtualization where one machine imitates several.

VPC != MS Virtual Server? (2, Interesting)

sh4na (107124) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053945)

Using this sort of software, you actually NEED Windows. You boot up a VM and then proceed to install an OS just like a real machine. This is massively unlike Wine and is somewhat different from VPC too.


Where is VirtualPC different in this? Virtual Server *is* VPC, MS bought Connectix and changed the name of the product... VPC is an virtualization environment where you install windows (and other OSs), so you need windows to install it, I don't see the difference.

If you say Microsoft's Virtual Server is considerably worse than VPC was, then I can agree there's a difference, and this is not just MS bashing. I've tried both, and know windows admins that have tried both, and we all rue the day that Connectix got bought, because VPC was (and still is, amazingly enough) a much better application than Virtual Server, in speed, stability and compatibility.

It's ironic that MS is basically killing a good product much in the way that IBM did when they bought Lotus. There are things that just shouldn't be bought by big companies, they have too many conflicting interests and not enough vision and purpose to carry out a truly good thing.

Re:VPC != MS Virtual Server? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15053987)

Then you didn't need to mention WINE.

VMware (3, Interesting)

Sduic (805226) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053818)

This will enable use by all developers, software vendors and projects and includes open licensing compatible with those operating under open source licenses such as the GPL.

Just how compatible must the license be be (I imagine a BSD type is pushing it)? Also, do they mean GPL 2 or 3?

Bah... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15053828)

Must better coverage over at this blog [hishamrana.com] . Check out VMWare President Diane Greene's blog.

And here is direct link to the Microsoft download [microsoft.com] page that requires registration.

Direct link to the 32bit version: here [microsoft.com] . (no reg required)

Direct link to the 64bit version: here [microsoft.com] . (no reg required)

Happy downloading.

Sorry, Microsoft, we know your tricks. (4, Funny)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053830)

When you gave away MS Internet Explorer for free, many of us fell for it. Now we know better.

Re:Sorry, Microsoft, we know your tricks. (2, Insightful)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053942)

When you gave away MS Internet Explorer for free, many of us fell for it. Now we know better.

Most likely the "free" Virtual Server will require Windows 2003 Server which is very expensive. "free" VMWare Server is $0 running on GNU/Linux.

Re:Sorry, Microsoft, we know your tricks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15053951)

I'm going to install it on the XP Pro installation I borrowed. Plenty of room left on that drive after the Visual Studio Express I installed yesterday.

Re:Sorry, Microsoft, we know your tricks. (2, Funny)

Dysproxia (584031) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053953)

If you think giving software away for free is bad, wait till you hear what the open source community has been doing!

Eeh... (0, Troll)

jamesgamble (917138) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053841)

I think this has been blown out of proportion a bit. Sure, Microsoft is going to support getting Linux running, but so what. If they support Virtual Server, they have to be able to support everything that can run on it. I don't see what the big deal is other than Linux purests saying "OMG, Micr0$0ft i$ $upp0rting Linux! LOLz0rz! HAHA". Come on, it's stupid, it's annoying, and no one cares.

Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15053896)

Wrong. Microsoft did not offer any support to paying customers who installed Linux under Virtual Server. Now they provide support if you run Linux from either Red Hat or Novell. Furthermore, the press release [microsoft.com] also has a link to the Linux tools necessary for smooth video and mouse movement. It helps to read [theregister.com] a [hishamrana.com] little [com.com] before [microsoft.com] commenting [microsoft.com] .

Stifling Innovation? (2, Interesting)

Enrique1218 (603187) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053844)

Is this yet another expample of Microsoft stifling innovation. Some had already mention the parallels to Netscape where Microsoft essentially knock them out of business witht the free release of IE. Then, let IE development stagger till it became riddle with holes and bugs. I worry that they are doing the same thing in virtualization.

Re:Stifling Innovation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15053955)

Stifling huh? Where do you think http://www.aarongiles.com/ [aarongiles.com] works?

Fox Supporting the Penguinhouse (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053867)

Oh, yeah - I want Microsoft "supporting" my Linux installs, so they can count all my nonfunctioning instances against the Linux stats when they tell the world how Windows is "more reliable".

Why on earth... (1)

Skiron (735617) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053871)

...anyway would people want to run GNU/Linux on a MS VS???

Re:Why on earth... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15054024)

It presents a challenge to them. Their goal is to have a longer uptime on the Linux guest operating systems than the Windows host...

Degraded Performance? (1, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053872)

I wonder if they will ship a slightly degraded version, much as VMware is doing.

Re:Degraded Performance? (1)

N1ghtFalcon (884555) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053910)

I'm curious, where have you heard that VMWare Server has worse performance than the former GSX? (I'm assuming that is what you're taking about?)

Re:Degraded Performance? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053977)

No 'hearsay', this is direct comparison of both products on the same hardware. However, as another person points out that ( at least in the server case ) they have debugging turned on, which would slow things down.

Re:Degraded Performance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15053912)

Degraded performance?

Its a freaking beta with debugging enabled by default ...

Of course its going to be slower than the production release.

However, Vmware are not releasing a "crippled" version of anything - Server will run at the same (if not better) speed as GSX. Considering they are the same product.

With Workstation / Server or GSX ... you should receive about 65-75% of native speed. If your in an enterprise environment I would suggest ESX.

Re:Degraded Performance? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053961)

Ok, ill give you that on the GSX/VMServer comparison.

But Im also talking about the workstation version. Even after beta its still worse performance then my 'paid' copy.

Fighting the last war (4, Interesting)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053880)

Microsoft sees VMWare as their enemy because they are banking cash today. (Thou shalt have no other vendors other than Microsoft) However Xen is probably the bigger threat. And I'd say they understand that as well, otherwise they could have done the one thing that would have made an instant difference.

Remember that when Xen was a research project at a university they had XP running in Xen because they had a source license for XP. However since said license didn't allow actually releasing anything derived from knowledge gained from that source they couldn't release the XP client drivers. Had Microsoft removed that restriction or, even better, provided Microsoft supported drivers Xen would likely crush VMWare in a few short years.

And don't forget AMD/Intel (3, Informative)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 8 years ago | (#15054120)

Microsoft sees VMWare as their enemy because they are banking cash today. (Thou shalt have no other vendors other than Microsoft) However Xen is probably the bigger threat.
Absolutely Xen is the bigger threat, but more importantly, the new Intel VT and AMD Pacifica chips are the writing on the wall for both VMware and Microsoft. The technology in these new chips makes it possible for XenSource to come out with a version of Xen that will run Windows, not just modified Xen OSes. It won't be hard for other folks to do the same. This obviates all the hard R&D work that Connectix and VMware put into doing the same thing without hardware support. In the very near future, the ability to provide virtualized systems and run virtual machines will be a non-issue. The only race left is to deliver the best support and management tools.

Re:Fighting the last war (1)

bitflip (49188) | more than 8 years ago | (#15054132)

If you scroll to the bottom of the Cambridge page (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/SRG/netos/xen/ [cam.ac.uk] ), you can see that MS Research was involved with its development.

MS is calling it a "hypervisor", and plans to include it in Vista (probably as an add-on, later).

I don't doubt that giving away Virtual Server is related to putting a stop on VMWare. At the same time, they may see it as a non-issue, long-term, because they aren't likely to make a bunch of money off of Virtual Server when the hypervisor ships.

Great news! Question... (2, Interesting)

geekylinuxkid (831805) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053902)

I wonder now that it's OSS, now it can be thrown into the kernel and possibly be mounted like any other fs? Is this possible? Thanks.

Re:Great news! Question... (1)

sh4na (107124) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053993)

You're a bit confused...

1. They're giving it away for free, they're not opening the code.
2. Virtual Server is not a system, it's a virtualization application that simulates hardware so you can install operating systems inside it's environment. The OS thinks it's running on a real machine and not under a software... that's why it's called *Virtual* Server. :p

DINGDINGDING, ERROR! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15054075)

Sorry, you're the confused one: He's talking of the second half of the post, in which it states that Vmware has opensourced the specs (and source, it sounded like) of their vmdk file format, which is used to store system images (or just storage space) for vmware virtual machines.

Thank you for playing, we have some *lovely* parting gifts for you...

Re:Great news! Question... (1)

tender-matser (938909) | more than 8 years ago | (#15054108)

An OSS implementation exists since years as part of qemu (even if they don't handle vmware version 3 images correctly - but that's easily fixed).

I always used "qemu-img" to convert vmware images to sparse files that I mount then as loop devices (note: don't try this with a "modern" filesystem that doesn't support sparse files - like reiserfs).

It's probably easy to write some FUSE module to let you do this without converting the image first, but is it worth the trouble ?

VMware server is free too.. and better.. (2, Insightful)

cowmix (10566) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053915)

I am using VMware server now.. and its great..

All the work I do; making VMs, API based automation, etc.. works great on a Linux or Windows host.

Why would you want to run VMs on only a Windows host when VMware gives you choice?

Re:VMware server is free too.. and better.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15053964)

VMware is not free, they merely have a player version that will run existing virtual machines you have access to. You cannot create a new machine using their player.

Re:VMware server is free too.. and better.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15054032)

VMWare Server is free. And you can create virtual machines in it. Check the website, dumbass.

after the market research.... (2, Insightful)

know1 (854868) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053917)

and looking at the open source software world, microsoft finally hit on the favourite price that consumers want

My submission about VMWare was rejected.... (5, Informative)

Malor (3658) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053926)

Note that VMWare is also giving away their Server product for free. For some reason, Slashdot hasn't been willing to run this story, even though it's important.

It's a new product, still in beta... about equivalent to the GSX Server. They just released Beta 2 either today or yesterday. It's a _really_ good product. The current keys they're giving away expire, but they say the final version will also be free-as-in-beer.

Basically, it'll do everything Workstation will, plus it allows you to see the consoles of virtual machines that are on another computer. It also gives you a fairly rudimentary web-based control panel, wherein you can start, stop, or restart particular VMs. You can also set up user accounts, and restrict access to particular machines appropriately. It's not ISP-class, but it'd be damn useful for QA teams or suchlike.

Re:My submission about VMWare was rejected.... (1)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 8 years ago | (#15054008)

Note that VMWare is also giving away their Server product for free. For some reason, Slashdot hasn't been willing to run this story, even though it's important.

The reason is because Slashdot ran the story two months ago here [slashdot.org] .

Re:My submission about VMWare was rejected.... (1)

Al_Lapalme (698542) | more than 8 years ago | (#15054084)

I guess dupes are necessary after all...

plastics! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15053947)

They're giving it away for free but they'll make up for it in volume!

Nice timing (2, Funny)

Jsutton1027w (757650) | more than 8 years ago | (#15053965)

It seems like a good time for VMWare to open up it's disk format, now that Qemu has it completely reverse-engineered. :)

such a waste... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15053973)

In a related move VMware have opened their partition file format to the community, aggressive and suprising moves in the virtualisation market."
Surely one of the most perfect opportunities for correct semicolon usage for which one could ever wish; these chances should not be so lightly squandered.

To be fair... (1)

Null Nihils (965047) | more than 8 years ago | (#15054021)

FTA: "To be fair, VMware has a free version of its mid-market product in beta and this software stacks up well against Virtual Server."

So VMware is giving a version away for free as well, so its not all that one-sided. However, the 800-pound Microsoft is looking directly in VMware's direction. VMware should indeed be scared, and customers should definitely worry that in a few years there might not be as much choice in the virtualization marketplace.

On the other hand, we could get VMwarezilla in the end. And, eventually, VMwarefox?

ok (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15054027)

"customer support for Linux"

What next? Vista built on top of Linux?

Let's Not Forget The Mac Community... (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 8 years ago | (#15054036)

What about the Mac community? Microsoft should make Virtual PC free and VMware should have their product available on the Mac for the same price. If you're going to run other operating systems on a VM, Mac hardware is just as good as anyone else's.

WTF? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15054050)

Linux is STILL for fags.

YOU FAIL IT! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15054063)

that su4port

now you can buy multiple windows licenses per box (1)

LodCrappo (705968) | more than 8 years ago | (#15054064)

Seems like a no brainer to me... anyone silly enough to be running MS VM is probably going to be running more silly MS operating systems with it, which means now MS can sell multiple (expensive) server licenses per box. Oh yeah, the VM is free. But you still have to buy Windows, in this case several times perhaps. If I was running that place I'd have been giving away the ability to purchase multiple OS per box all along.

Yup ... (4, Funny)

hotspotbloc (767418) | more than 8 years ago | (#15054091)

The first hit is always free. =)

i tried installing it (1)

know1 (854868) | more than 8 years ago | (#15054106)

it bitched about not having IIS installed. where i come from they call a software package that requires another to installed first an expansion pack. just thought i'd point out it isn'tas free as they say. oh well, guess i'll stick with apache on a non virtual server...

Re:i tried installing it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15054121)


What language is your post in?

Windows on Windows? (1)

jefu (53450) | more than 8 years ago | (#15054112)

So will you be able to run Windows in a virtual machine running on windows?

The register piece makes it look like you'll only be able to run other OSs. Being able to virtualize Windows could be a Good Thing.

The end of the world as we know it... (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 8 years ago | (#15054115)

Microsoft supports Linux... head explodes... what next? Cats and dogs living together [irc-galleria.net] ?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>