Is this an LKM?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| moopst Jul 21, 2009 12:28 AM EDT |
Is this a loadable kernel module (that I can choose not to load) or is it stuck in the base kernel? Oh course, since I'm running Slackware it won't show up for 5 years anyway :). This makes sense that M$ would want Linux to run nicely in a M$ host system. I wonder if they will make their OS run well in a Linux host? I highly doubt it. Quoting:Ramji called virtualization a crucial technology for consolidation in the data center. "The question becomes am I going to pick multiple versions of virtualization technology; one for each operating system or workload, and if I do that, will I get the benefit that I need? Or can I pick one virtualization technology, one management technology and have one set of skills to support that whole infrastructure regardless if it is Unix, Linux or Windows running on top of it. We can clearly and consistently state we are a great choice to be your virtualization infrastructure provider." |
| chalbersma Jul 21, 2009 12:54 AM EDT |
I'm in shock. M$ + GPL ? Wait GPL2 doesn't have patent protection doesn't it... |
| herzeleid Jul 21, 2009 1:26 AM EDT |
Keep your shirt on - microsoft isn't GPLing windows, office or anything else of importance to them. They have submitted some code to make the linux kernel play better with the microsoft hypervisor, so that it becomes a better platform for running linux. Remember, microsoft loves open source - if and only if it's running on top of microsoft windows. |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 21, 2009 5:08 AM EDT |
Quoting:I wonder if they will make their OS run well in a Linux host? I highly doubt it. Windows already runs fine on a Linux host using VMWare, Xen or VirtualBox. Any box that has hardware virtualisation extensions can run Windows at full speed, no matter what the underlying OS is. |
| Shagbag Jul 21, 2009 6:39 AM EDT |
The best thing about this news is what's not being reported: M$ has had to cave in to its customers rather than vice-versa. Another sign that M$'s power to manipulate IT is receding. I hope this continues into the desktop market segment, so that the general consumer can finally have some real choices. |
| tracyanne Jul 21, 2009 7:08 AM EDT |
Quoting:Windows already runs fine on a Linux host using VMWare, Xen or VirtualBox Indeed it does. I run XP on Virtualbox on my laptop, provided I assign 2 gig of RAM to the Windows VM, thet leaves me with 1 Gig for the host, XP runs quite well enough for me to program in Visual Studio.NET with MS SQL Server development studio running as well. |
| softwarejanitor Jul 21, 2009 9:42 AM EDT |
@herzeleid Microsoft doesn't love every bit of open source running on Windows. It doesn't like anything that competes with any of its other products, especially one of its other de-facto monopoly cash cows like MS-Office. But they only begrudgingly acknowledge or support things like Apache (because they don't sell IIS as a separate product). I believe it was a major concession to market forces that their cloud offering is supposedly going to support MySQL. I'm sure they would much rather people used MS-SQL Server. |
| jdixon Jul 21, 2009 9:58 AM EDT |
> Is this an LKM? I have no idea if Microsoft submitted the drivers as loadable modules or not, but I doubt they will make it through the review process as anything else. |
| jdixon Jul 21, 2009 10:02 AM EDT |
> I run XP on Virtualbox on my laptop, I recently tried XP on the latest version of Virtualbox with 512 MB of assigned memory. It installed easily and worked perfectly. Perhaps more importantly, while the higher level 3D functions failed (no Pirates or Sims2), things like Age of Wonders installed and ran fine. All in all, I'd say it provides a better desktop package than VMWare Server 1.9 does (I haven't tried 2.0 yet). For servers, VMWare's management tools probably still give it the edge. |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 21, 2009 12:03 PM EDT |
@jdixon: I believe that the latest VirtualBox support hardware accellerated 3D inside guests OSes like Windows XP. Not sure if that's a feature limited to the commercial version of VirtualBox or if the FOSS variant can do it too though. |
| jdixon Jul 21, 2009 12:09 PM EDT |
> I believe that the latest VirtualBox support hardware accellerated 3D inside guests OSes like Windows XP. Yes, it does. That was my motivation for trying it out. It looks like it may be a real alternative for the casual games my wife likes and some older, non-T&L games. > Not sure if that's a feature limited to the commercial version of VirtualBox or if the FOSS variant can do it too though. While I'd love to be wrong, I suspect it's commercial only. Oh, and it installed with no compaints on Slackware 12.2, which is a pleasant change from VMWare. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 21, 2009 3:13 PM EDT |
Having only used VirtualBox, VMWare must be astounding to be a better server. I agree about the accelerated graphics limitations, but such is life. Everything else seems to work, which is quite amazing all by itself. They're also running OpenGL acceleration, what isn't working yet is DirectX. Some day I'll have a multi-core CPU and really see what these things work like. Running XP as a client on this 512MB 2.8GHz P4 gets kind of bogged down. |
| jdixon Jul 21, 2009 3:20 PM EDT |
> Having only used VirtualBox, VMWare must be astounding to be a better server. As I understand it, VMWare has a full management suite which works with their various offerings, and is therefore more "enterprise friendly". From a single user perspective, I doubt it's any better. And while they're also working on 3D acceleration, I don't think they're as far along as Virtualbox is. I was pleasantly surprised at how well it worked. |
| softwarejanitor Jul 21, 2009 4:20 PM EDT |
@Bob_Robertson At minimum you need more RAM, 512MB is barely enough to run a lot of things decently under XP if it is running natively. Take away the memory used by the virtualization software and add in the overhead and it will just be that much worse. Most people I know think that 1GB of RAM is about minimum to do much with XP and that means you probably need at least 1.5MB to run it virtualized w/o taking a hit. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 21, 2009 4:50 PM EDT |
> 512MB is barely enough to run a lot of things decently under XP if it is running natively. Maxed-out laptop. 512 is all I get, all I ever will get. That's why I waxed philosophic about future hardware purchases. The XP VM gets 192M for itself under VB, the minimum. Such is life. It's otherwise a very nice machine, and Linux practically rattles around in the 512M no matter what I do. Unless I run the XP VM, swap isn't even touched. I tried to "update" XP over the weekend, to get XP-SP2 so that NetFlix on-demand movies will work. No such luck, MS has decided I've an illegal copy. Buggers. As if I'm going to buy a second copy of XP after buying it on this box originally. Bugger-buggers. |
| jdixon Jul 21, 2009 4:56 PM EDT |
> MS has decided I've an illegal copy. If it's a full box purchase (not OEM), then call them up and tell them to fix it. :) Either they'll do so, or it'll be good for a laugh. If it's OEM, then you're probably out of luck, as they consider that to only be good for the equipment it was purchased with (whether that's legal or not is something I'm not qualified to comment on; it's definitely unethical, IMO). Of course, this is why I prefer Windows 2000, but not many folks support it anymore. :( There are, of course, hacks out there, but I can't comment on them either, as I've never tried them. |
| softwarejanitor Jul 21, 2009 5:00 PM EDT |
@Bob_Robertson Did you get a restore CD or is there a restore partition? Maybe if you called the hardware maker they would send you one, but I suppose not likely if it is that old that it can't go over 512MB RAM. Using restore media would probably be a pain in the butt to use, but it might be your only viable option. You;d probably have to re-install Linux after that. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 21, 2009 5:18 PM EDT |
The only "restore" is the one I made of what was on the disk. No media came with it. I've replaced the disk since, so any partition that I might have missed when wiping and installing Linux is a wash as well. No, it's entirely a matter of Microsoft's policy of making it has hard as possible not to buy and buy and buy their product. I'll pass on NetFlix if that's the way it is. |
| softwarejanitor Jul 21, 2009 5:29 PM EDT |
@Bob_Robertson Totally understandable under those circumstances. I know of at least a couple of people who switched to Linux after not being able to use Windows due to "Genuine Advantage" deciding their legit installs were pirated. A couple of others I know bought Macs after deciding they'd never spend another penny with Microsoft. |
| tracyanne Jul 21, 2009 6:02 PM EDT |
Quoting:I recently tried XP on the latest version of Virtualbox with 512 MB of assigned memory. It installed easily and worked perfectly Yes it does, however, you don't want to do lots of cpu and memory intensive stuff, like running MS SQL server plus the MS SQL Server development studio, plus Visual Studio, They don't run very well if you assign less than 1 Gig of Ram, and the windows swap file gets a bigger workout than usual. |
| jdixon Jul 21, 2009 7:43 PM EDT |
> ...however, you don't want to do lots of cpu and memory intensive stuff, like running MS SQL server plus the MS SQL Server development studio, plus Visual Studio, They don't run very well if you assign less than 1 Gig of Ram, You think? ;:) I could assign a Gig easily, since I recently updated this machine to 3 GB, but 512 MB is enough for the stuff I run and testing. |
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!