who cares
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| herzeleid Mar 14, 2007 10:26 AM EDT |
what a useless waste of resources. I have no interest in running linux as a guest under an ms pee cee OS, nor does anyone I know. Get a clue Novell, this only makes you look really lame... |
| DarrenR114 Mar 14, 2007 10:37 AM EDT |
Actually, I could name a very large Hotel chain where exactly this sort of thing comes in handy - due to their heavy use of both UNIX and MS-Windows. When you run an Outlook Exchange server, not even the real MS-products on a Mac will function reliably enough. VMWare is a necessity unless you want to go the dual-boot route. |
| tuxtom Mar 14, 2007 10:53 AM EDT |
@herzeleid: Virtualization is the future, like it or not. The host system is largely irrelevant. Plenty of people run Windows under VMWare on Linux and under Parallels on the Mac. I am working on an embedded Linux project and our lead engineer is running Linux under Parallels on a Mac. On the server side virtualization is becoming even more prevalent. Whether you think it is a smart move or not, it will get more people using Linux. It is a huge step, in my opinion. Just think, only a few years ago if you said Microsoft would actively partner in a project to run Linux in a VM under Windows you would be locked up in an asylum. |
| herzeleid Mar 14, 2007 1:28 PM EDT |
darren and tuxtom: you're missing the point. Sure, virtualization is a trend, but ms windoze underneath? sorry, that's too funny. No linux user I've talked to is even remotely interested in converting his linux boxes to captive images inside ms pee cee servers. OTOH using linux as the base for virtual system, definitely, and for those who can't understand the distinction, it's a major one. Clearly, for novell to play into this ms nonsense makes them the buffoon. |
| azerthoth Mar 14, 2007 2:52 PM EDT |
There are uses. When I'm at work I'm in a windows only world. There are time though when I cant think of a way to do what I want outside of Linux. While I am sure there is a windoze way to do it, its usually easier for me to spin up DSL under QEMU for windows. Worse case scenario is I also keep putty on a thumbdrive so I can ssh into one of my home boxes, but that leaves footprints for the IT guys to follow back to my desk. |
| dinotrac Mar 14, 2007 3:00 PM EDT |
herzeleid - >No linux user I've talked to So, how badly can you miss a point? The issue is not linux users. The issue is non-linux users who might become linux users. You grow the flock by adding more geese. |
| herzeleid Mar 14, 2007 3:41 PM EDT |
Quoting: dino: So, how badly can you miss a point?I appreciate your effort to spin this in a good light, but by creating more uses for ms windoze, and blurring the lines, you keep windoze users firmly in the microsoft camp, rather than affording them the opportunity to move to linux. They assume that linux is just another ms windoze app - (gee isn't ms windoze wonderful, why would we ever consider changing?) |
| herzeleid Mar 14, 2007 3:46 PM EDT |
Quoting: There are uses. When I'm at work I'm in a windows only world.That sucks, I'd find a better job. But, if you've chosen the microsoft path, you should invest the necessary effort to do what's needed the ms way. If it's really a hassle, why not mention to management "we could get a lot more done if we had some linux systems here". But this whole business of "linux" running under ms windoze is like a vaccination, to prevent an actual migration to linux. I despise Novell for playing along and helping facilitate this. |
| azerthoth Mar 14, 2007 3:54 PM EDT |
Try convincing the federal government that there is a better way. :P |
| dcparris Mar 14, 2007 4:34 PM EDT |
> I'd find a better job. Yeah, that's great advice. azerthoth, I hereby decree that you must have a better (read Linux) job to report to by Monday morning. 7:30 sharp. Be there or be square! No, I don't care if it's all the way in India. What? You don't like India? How do you know? Have you ever been there? What? What do you mean you like where you live? Look, just get yer blooming Linux job. Monday. Or else. Or else what? I don't know! Just or else! |
| jimf Mar 14, 2007 4:45 PM EDT |
> I don't care if it's all the way in India. Oh,' the job' is eventually going to India. azerthoth? Not so much... Unless he wants a 75% paycut. So he probably will need 'another' job. Good luck on the job search. |
| tuxtom Mar 14, 2007 5:42 PM EDT |
@herzeleid: I'm not missing your point. Your point is you hate Microsoft Windows in any way, shape or form...and that it is acceptable to run Windows in a VM on Linux but it's verboten to do it the other way around. Can't really say I disagree with you. I think you are missing the point, though, and I'll tell you why: I'd rather run Linux in a VM under Microsoft than not run Linux at all. That is the reality that millions of servers face. This "parnership" will get Linux running in places it has never run before. No Linux enthusiast is going to opt for that route voluntarily, but it is a quantum leap for the big starchy "enterprise" or the Microsoft Certified Gold Partner down the street. Don't be so focused on the seeming impurity of the arrangement that you can't recognize the magnitude of the victory...and it's only the beginning. It's just a matter of time before the role gets reversed and the dwindling need for Windows will relegate it to VM's on Linux servers. I trust that Linux will prove itself to those that haven't used it yet...just like it has for those that do. |
| swbrown Mar 14, 2007 8:53 PM EDT |
I want Windows guests on Linux, not Linux guests on Windows. So would everyone. |
| dinotrac Mar 14, 2007 9:26 PM EDT |
>I trust that Linux will prove itself to those that haven't used it yet...just like it has for those that do. Aboslutely. Let's not forget how Linux got it's foothold in the enterprise: By being installed on spare equipment as a file-server or printer server in places that demanded network improvements but wouldn't allocate resources to do the job. Lots of those original Linux installations were completely under the radar, unknown to corporate management because Samba was impersonating a Windows box. The foot in the door is what let's the knee, then the hip, and then everything else slip in. |
| dcparris Mar 14, 2007 9:54 PM EDT |
I have to confess. Running a Linux VM on a WIndows host is completely backwards in my view. Still, I agree that making that possible (backwards as it is) is not a bad thing at all. Some people look at the world upside down, so why not technology? |
| tuxtom Mar 14, 2007 10:03 PM EDT |
dc: It its completely backwards to me technically, but it is totally brilliant tactically. |
| dcparris Mar 14, 2007 10:22 PM EDT |
Yeah, what you said. :-) |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 15, 2007 3:09 AM EDT |
Quoting:I want Windows guests on Linux, not Linux guests on Windows. So would everyone. That's already possible. The reverse is as-of-yet not possible (with MS's virtualisation product that is. VMware and Qemu work fine). |
| jimf Mar 15, 2007 4:26 AM EDT |
> Some people look at the world upside down, so why not technology? Still, it makes 'no' engineering sense to support the superior stable & secure system, with the buggy, insecure, and obviously inferior one. Hard to get around that. |
| dinotrac Mar 15, 2007 4:47 AM EDT |
>Hard to get around that. Not at all. Engineers always have to work within the constraints of the business problem. What makes engineering sense for a Mercedes may not make engineering sense for a Hyundai. If the business problem is to get non-linux users trying linux, the ability to host linux shares on their host of choice might make tons of engineering sense because it does what all good engineering jobs must do: solve the problem at hand. |
| jimf Mar 15, 2007 4:53 AM EDT |
> Not at all. Engineers always have to work within the constraints of the business problem. Politically it's 'possible'. Technically it makes no sense. If that's what the business wants, then that's what they'll get... With all that implies. |
| jdixon Mar 15, 2007 6:19 AM EDT |
> If that's what the business wants, then that's what they'll get... With all that implies. Jim, there you go again, expecting technical competence from business managers. :) |
| bigg Mar 15, 2007 6:51 AM EDT |
I have two machines at the office. One is Debian, my main work machine. The other is Windows, has to remain Windows, and is there to ensure that I can access anything MS-only. One option would be to just leave the Windows machine sit. The other, which is what I do, is to run VMWare and test other distributions like PCLinux, Kubuntu, Fedora,.... Now I can switch between two Linux distributions with the push of a button. Then take my wife. Would she consider using Linux as her main OS? No. But for anything requiring security, she uses PCLinux in VMWare. It's tons easier to get people to try Linux if all they have to do is install it like any other Windows program. Virtualization greatly reduces the cost of testing out and moving to Linux. When I bought her a new Vista laptop, one of the first things she had me do was set it up to dual-boot with Mepis. That was her idea, not mine. It would never have happened without running Linux on top of Windows in the first place. It doesn't make sense to me that Windows exists. Nonetheless, it's not fair to make it expensive for Windows users to try out and migrate to Linux. If Linux really is the superior OS, it shouldn't matter if they are running it on top of Windows, because they will eventually choose Linux. |
| jimf Mar 15, 2007 7:17 AM EDT |
> Jim, there you go again, expecting technical competence from business managers. :) I know, I know... Too high expecations :( |
| jimf Mar 15, 2007 7:20 AM EDT |
> make it expensive for Windows users to try out and migrate to Linux. Lol, that's the biggest piece of FUD I've heard in a while. |
| dinotrac Mar 15, 2007 8:44 AM EDT |
>Lol, that's the biggest piece of FUD I've heard in a while. It's not FUD at all. When you are using Windows every day to earn your living, there is a cost associated with moving to Linux. Managers and users alike have a tendency to vastly overestimate that cost and its associated risks. Linux geeks tend to vastly underestimate it. A way to let the overestimaters factor out risk and drop their estimate is a good thing, not bad. |
| bigg Mar 15, 2007 9:00 AM EDT |
The most popular question I get is "Can you access the internet with Linux?" The second most popular question is "Isn't Linux the same as DOS?" It's easy for me to give them a link to VMWare Player and an Ubuntu appliance. I can give them a live cd, but that's not the same thing, for instance they can't see how much easier software installation is with Linux (at least the what I show them). |
| swbrown Mar 15, 2007 9:30 AM EDT |
> I want Windows guests on Linux, not Linux guests on Windows. So would everyone.
>
>> That's already possible. The reverse is as-of-yet not possible (with MS's virtualisation product that is. VMware and Qemu work fine). I don't think you understand - Windows on Linux isn't viable for most things right now as it's not paravirtualized. So, it's incredibly slow, and doesn't share resources. What Microsoft wants is paravirtualized Linux on Windows. They're going to force the "Linux on Windows" solution to be better. And yes, the code to paravitualize Windows on Xen already exists - Microsoft paid XenSource to write it for them, and used it to learn how to slave Linux to Windows. I'm not sure what the point of saying Novell is involved is other than PR - the code is already done. All Novell would be doing is commercial support of Microsoft's Linux on Windows. |
| tuxtom Mar 15, 2007 10:11 AM EDT |
@swbrown: So what's your point, other than being bitter? |
| tuxchick Mar 15, 2007 10:26 AM EDT |
You don't need paravirtualization when you have hardware virtualization support. Both Intel and AMD have CPUs that do this. Paravirtualization is a dead end, IMO, because it requires customized guests. Hardware virtualization runs unmodified guests, and opens up all kinds of possibilities. So the only remaining barriers are artificial, like dimwitted restrictive licensing. Xen is all hot and everything, but it's not the only way, and not even the best way. |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 15, 2007 2:37 PM EDT |
Xen can do hardware virtualization as well as paravirtualization. That's why Xen can run Windows (and only on machines with hardware virtualization). You can't run paravirtualized Windows, period. You can't make the required changes to the Windows kernel. Look at the xen-ioemu package. |
| swbrown Mar 15, 2007 2:39 PM EDT |
> @swbrown: So what's your point, other than being bitter? That the 'partnership' for 'interoperability' is totally one-sided. |
| swbrown Mar 15, 2007 2:58 PM EDT |
> You don't need paravirtualization when you have hardware virtualization support. No, you're not understanding the issues. Full hardware virtualization does not replace paravirtualization, it augments it (or you could say that the other way around as well). It's why both Windows and Linux now have built-in hypervisors that use full hardware virtualization but also paravirtualize various portions. The two main reasons this is done are for the additional speed and manageability. Uncooperative guests are, obviously, uncooperative. For example, the kernel team has recently been paravirtualizing parts of KVM (which requires hardware virtualization) for these very reasons. http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/1/5/205 |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!