Hadron Quark wrote:
You don't half give away your lack of intelligence in these posts.
> BearItAll <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> 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.
>
> Well, since people have been running Windows versions in virtual
> machines for donkeys years in QA labs, then I daresay that is a very
> accurate and insightful statement ....
>
That is why I said it, but there was a snot-n-sticky tape approach until MS
made changes for the VM community in XP.
>>
>> Take the Linux effect, another area where Linux is leaps and bounds ahead
>> of MS.
>
> In the "Linux effect"? I would hope so ....
>
You can't read can you. The comma is significant.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Why? Whats "not so different" from the other 694 distros?
>
Yes there is a difference. Of cause all Linux can be made to do the same
things, but that doesn't mean that the base of each is identical or that
they take the same approach in each area of the system, if they were
identical they would be no need for more than one distro.
Linux people know this, you know diddly squat about anything.
>>
>> Debian,Ubuntu,CentOS,Fedora,Gentoo (basically one of each main family)
>
> Ubuntu is of the Debian family.
>
They are different. You could easily argue that all distros depend in some
way on Debian, the argument has been placed many times over the years and
it is very hard to dispute except in some finer points. But the derived
distros are not all identical.
Of cause some distros are nothing more than backdrop and button colour
changes, those tend to hover at the bottom of the distrowatch tables.
>>
>> 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
>
> "basically"? Oh, do tell us the more complicated version.
>
That is your lack of English not mine.
I still say that if I was doing your job of anti-Linux advocate I could do
it much better than you do.
|
|
