Linux support?

Revolution? After they gutted a product and lost 80% of customers, now they are backtracking and ungutting? And then marketing spinning it? That passes for a revolution? Sometimes you gotta wonder about the monoculture clowns, that don't understand that interoperability is the highest Enterprise goal, a rising tide lifts all boats. I still can't get over the amount of spin and truth-fudging that comes out from Microsoft on a daily basis. Vista delay on account of our 'partner deployment practices' and now a retreat is a rallying cry revolution?

Paraaaaallllleeellll Unnnnniversssses in Redmond.

I'm really not sure what to think about this yet. On one hand, it is great that MS is admitting that they aren't the only options available for the x86 platform. They've known Linux is there, but they always down-play it as if it's a trivial issue to be ignored. It's great that I can now to more testing in my environment without having to get more hardware. And MS has a support line too! This kinda boggles the mind - giving *ANY* type of support to a non-windows OS! Wow.

On the other hand, this bothers me. Yes, MS has always known Linux is there, but they've just ignored them. That's fine with me. BUT, as referred to in the source article, once the big hands of MS embrace your product, you're going to have issues. MS doesn't have a good track record of playing nice with others - anyone that isn't MS is an enemy to be destroyed or an ally, which will soon be bought or forced out of the arena by a new MS product to take their place. I don't want to see this to happen to Linux. I think MS may have started on a quest to kill off linux, starting with supporting it, then starting the 'destroy' process. Just gotta wonder what their battle plan is, and how far down the timeline we are......

It's great to see that Microsoft are finally recognising that OSes other than there own exist and should be supported under any decent VM. I'm sure they'd rather people ran Linux VMs on a Windows server than Windows VMs on a Linux server.

Robert,

You forgot the best part of this product -- it's free! Go get the download at:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/vi...

If you get it on CD there is also a trialware copy of Windows Server 2003.

Absolutely there's a market for running Linux in a Windows VM. One of the companies I contract to is a "100% MS place". That's what the CEO says, but he knows as well as I do that there's a couple of Linux servers in there that are needed for certain tasks.

Now, these machines don't have a huge load, but they are both sitting on separate boxes because the team there doesn't have the time / skill / desire / permission to amalgamate the two.

By running them in virtual machines they get the cushy feeling of running under an OS they know. I mean, they haven't had a single problem with the machines, but they're afraid that if something goes wrong, they won't have the knowledge. This would provide them with that feeling that they can handle it if something does go wrong.

Plus, they get to move two more machines out of the server room. Enough said!

Microsoft should seriously get to work on office for Linux. I don't think closed document formats and proprietization are going to save it from the impending doom brought on by F/LOSS solutions.

I'm a little curious why I would run Linux vm's on top of a Windows box? Maybe you could tell me and explain the cost benefits vs. running vm's on Linux?

Ah, never mind. I'm sure the next version of Virtual Server will again not support - or perhaps sabotage - Linux virtualization.

It's not a revolution. It's a realization that as long as Virtual Server only runs on Windows, they'll never, EVER have the flexibility of VMWare, so they now have the next best thing: Dirt Cheap. It's a reaction to a competitor that has an advantage that Microsoft can never beat.

But if you want the best breadth of options, VMWare kicks Virtual Server's ass. As well if, Parallels can get their OS X - based product out quickly, http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?newsID=5712, then Microsoft loses serious ground on OS X too.

Johnathon:

I may have sounded a little negative there, sorry. I wasn't doubting that it would run well, I was just curious as to how good the "Technical Support for Linux Guest Operating Systems" is going to be.

I would also like to expand on what I said about supporting any OS... what I think I meant to say was that really the emphasis shouldn't be on Linux as such, but on supporting as many OS' as possible (or, in other words, emulating the hardware as well as possible). Hmmm... now I know that sounds confusing but right now, I can't word it any better.

All in all, though, kudos.

Lincoln,

I am having no problems running Ubuntu and Debian through virtual server 2005.

Scoble,
Of course it would be wonderful to get official support for Ubuntu. How would one go about getting that?

Man oh man, so many thoughts running through my head. The main one is absolutely, "Fantastic!". Without a doubt this is a good thing.

At the back of head, though, I can't help but be thinking "hold on, what about all this cancer and communist talk?".

I also wonder "wouldn't a perfect Virtual PC run *any* OS that can run on the hardware?".

But all in all, it's a good thing, assuming the technical support side of getting Linux up and running is up to speed.

Pfft. It just means that Microsoft hasn't entirely gutted what's left of Connectix VirtualPC.