Seems like subtle FUD, suggesting that installing Linux is 'dangerous'. Another
impact of Microsoft FUD perhaps (Forrester, by the way, does a lot of business
with Microsoft):
IT still has issues trusting security of virtual appliances
,----[ Quote ]
| New research from Forrester shows that while there is growth in IT with
| regard to virtual applications, IT managers still hesitate to trust critical
| or sensitive information on them.
`----
http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/200811/385/IT-still-has-issues-trusting-security-of-virtual-appliances
This new one also:
Workshop: Explore Linux safely and easily
,----[ Quote ]
| Everything that happens in this virtual PC window is kept separate, so it
| cannot damage the real computer. So, you can install Linux (or anything else)
| without worrying about your PC or data. Here’s how to do it.
`----
http://www.itweek.co.uk/computeractive/features/2211661/workshop-explore-linux-safely
The whole introduction is quite FUD-filled. Mind the Microsoft FUD below (lies
for business reasons), which was stopped by antitrust wrath, IIUC:
Related:
Microsoft insults our intelligence on Virtualization security
,----[ Quote ]
| Microsoft has once again pulled out the security argument for its
| decision again and I must say that I find it rather insulting. It’s
| not that I think Microsoft doesn’t have a right as a private business
| to set the terms of the EULA as they see fit, but don’t take us for f
| ools. If they want to restrict Virtualization, just come out and
| say it and don’t make up ridiculous excuses for it.
|
| [...]
|
| Trying to stop a Hypervisor Rootkit with a EULA is like trying to
| stop Malware with a EULA.
`----
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=549
Is need for control behind Microsoft's flip-flop?
,----[ Quote ]
| Meanwhile, Gartner analyst Michael Silver took Microsoft to task
| for its continued restrictions.
|
| "Microsoft's policies...come off as a way to gouge customers," Silver
| said in an e-mail, noting that customers are forced to pay for higher
| priced editions, even though they don't get many of the benefits, like
| the Aero user interface, which often won't work in a virtual machine.
|
| Silver argues that Microsoft is likely leaving money on the table.
| "Allowing use of lower priced (editions) could even be worth more
| money to Microsoft as it would likely increase the number of people
| that would legally run a Microsoft OS in a VM (like on a Mac),"
| Silver wrote. "Eventually they will have no choice but to make their
| peace with virtualization."
`----
http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9733433-7.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
Vista Home Editions Won't Run On Mac, Linux Virtual Machines
,----[ Quote ]
| That means Linux aficionados or users of Apple Macs will not legally
| be able to use software from vendors such as Parallels or EMC's VMWare
| to create so-called virtual machines on their desktops to run Vista
| alongside their favorite OS. Windows users wanting to run Vista in a
| virtual machine environment for security or productivity purposes
| also will need either the Business or Ultimate Edition.
`----
http://www.channelweb.com/sections/allnews/article.jhtml?articleId=197003013&cid=ChannelWebNews
http://tinyurl.com/39xozq
Microsoft flip-flops on Vista virtualization
,----[ Quote ]
| Software like Parallels Desktop for the Mac or Microsoft's own Virtual
| PC for Windows allow multiple operating systems to run simultaneously.
| When it announced licensing rules for Vista last year, Microsoft said
| that only Vista Business and Vista Ultimate could run as guest
| operating systems. The company said virtualization presents inherent
| security risks and that it hoped by limiting which versions of the OS
| could act as virtual machines, only sophisticated users and businesses
| would employ the tactic.
`----
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6191787.html
|
|
