Microsoft claims Windows Server 2012 is 'first cloud OS'
Microsoft has formally launched its Windows Server 2012 operating system, which Satya Nadella, president of Redmond's Servers and Tools Business, is dubbing the company's first "cloud OS." "This is perhaps the biggest release of our server products in history, bigger than NT," he said at the launch event on Tuesday. "I was here …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Obviously
cue lots of
'Meh'
'They would say that wouldn't they?'
'They can tear server 2003 from my dead hands'
Comments.
Re: Obviously
You forgot about the local intelligentsia swanning in with the ever present 'Windblows sucks' and 'Micro$hit are crap' and 'Meh. Linux rulez' comments.
Oh how I prey this time it is different!
As for me, I'll look forward to giving it a spin.
Re: Obviously
Fortunately we have posters like you to raise the bar.
Late
MS is 10 months late. Oracle used the "First Cloud OS" claim for Solaris 11 in November:
http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/press/1356190
Re: Late
But Microsoft actually delivered....I dont see any shared nothing cross network VM cloud migration capabilities in Solaris...
I cant see why anyone buys Solaris anymore. Either Linux or Windows server will do the same and cost much less.
Re: Late
Ey RICHTO how ya doing?
I see ya'r still hailing from the Microsoft Dimension of Wishful Thinking, one of the spacetime bubbles in the marketing string landscape that can only be attained through transcendantal medication and whalesong.
Keep it together now.
Re: Late
RICHTO
"...But Microsoft actually delivered...."
You are too funny. MS have not delivered anything yet. Oralce 11 has been out there for a while, how long has MS offering been out?
And there are cloud OSes out there, for instance at Joyent which uses an OpenSolaris derivative called SmartOS
http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2011/09/15/standing-up-smartdatacenter/
Re: Late
True, the "cloud OS" (presumably meaning with virtualization included) has already been used by Oracle. MS claiming to be "cloud" anything is absurd. It took VMware becoming huge before they even figured out that people might want to virtualize their data center full of 10% utilized MS servers. Now that they have included a hypervisor, we are supposed to be impressed?
Re: Late
"Either Linux or Windows server will do the same and cost much less."
It is funny that you throw Microsoft in with Linux as a low cost alternative to Solaris. As Linux is considerably lower cost than either, why would you use MS Server or Solaris? Solaris doesn't make sense anymore. Microsoft never made sense. There are Unix functional advantages over Linux, e.g. patch management, reliability, clustering features, full workload partitioning, performance (Power - AIX anyway). There are no functional advantages Microsoft has over Linux... and it certainly can't hold a candle to Unix.
Re: Late
God, I hate people who think Linux is 'free'. If you're in an environment where for compliance reasons you have to have a supported OS it is not free. In our case SuSE works out more expensive over 3 years than MS (without software assurance) - and that's just in software/maintenance costs. OK, SA will push MS over the top (not by much though) but pretty much all we SA are CALs as we don't tend to upgrade servers every 4 years.
Re: Late
Yes they have. Server 2012 went RTM on August the 1st and has been available to download from Microsoft Volume Licensing site since August 15th, and is Generally Available today.
Re: Late
Linux is FAR more expensive than Windows Server. Have you looked at the licensing costs for Enteprrise Linux lately? Also it costs far more to support with a higher TCO.
Windows Server also has massive advantage over Linux distributions. Roughly a tenth of the security vulnerabilities for starters, and it also has many many enterprise features that Linux doesnt, for instance thin provisioning, deduplication and mutipath SMB.
Re: Late
"Windows Server also has massive advantage over Linux distributions. Roughly a tenth of the security vulnerabilities for starters, and it also has many many enterprise features that Linux doesnt, for instance thin provisioning, deduplication and mutipath SMB." -- Anything your Windows Server can do my Linux Server does better!
Re: Late
"Anything your Windows Server can do my Linux Server does better!"
Anything your Linux server can do, my BSD server does better!
Re: Late
I do apologise, but the comment was begging to be made :)
Re: Late
Doesn't matter who says it when...
In 3 years time Apple will release "iCloudOS", declare it to be the *1st* cloud OS and then start suing VMware, Google, Microsoft, Oracle and RedHat for infringing on it's Cloud design patents. It will mostly win these lawsuits in the US and the media will report that VMware et al. were finally proven to have stolen Apple's ideas for cloud desktops.
Fanbois will squeal how this proves Apple was the first and all the others should stop copying. El Reg will write an article quoting some tripe from Florian Mueller about how this is going to cost Google big time. Andrew Orlowski will follow up with an article about how this proves design patents are good for the world and will help innovation.
Amirite?
Re: Late
@Mike Hock
It was a BSD based Joke, isn't the mascot a little devil?
Re: Late
@Miek
Indeed, and that fact was not lost on me. I just felt compelled to apologise for any, er, disrespectful levity that may have been perceived in my remark.
Now I must dash back to the world of 'You are not allowed to ask sensible questions, let alone idiotic ones. Either way, just sod off & RTFM' i.e. BSD community forums :)
Re: Late
"Indeed, and that fact was not lost on me. I just felt compelled to apologise for any, er, disrespectful levity that may have been perceived in my remark." -- No apology necessary, I quite enjoyed the remark XD
Re: Late
Wasn't Plan-9, introduced in 1992, the first Cloud OS?
And Microsoft already said its Azure product was first Cloud OS. No one told the server division apparently.
10 months late?
More like 3 years - vmware used that term in 2009
http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/cloud/VMW_09Q2_WP_Cloud_OS_P8_R1.pdf
I'm sure someone else used it before them...
Ah yes, Microsoft. Never one to cloud the issue with the facts.
So thanks for the news, but what exactly makes it cloudy?
These sort of things make it cloudy:
http://blogs.technet.com/b/windowsserver/archive/2012/08/22/software-defined-networking-enabled-in-windows-server-2012-and-system-center-2012-sp1-virtual-machine-manager.aspx
http://blogs.technet.com/b/windowsserver/archive/2012/05/03/building-cloud-infrastructure-with-windows-server-2012-and-system-center-2012-sp1.aspx
http://blogs.technet.com/b/windowsserver/archive/2012/04/16/introducing-windows-server-8-hyper-v-network-virtualization-enabling-rapid-migration-and-workload-isolation-in-the-cloud.aspx
re: These sort of things make it cloudy:
http://blogs.technet.com/b/windowsserver/archive/2012/08/22/software-defined-networking-enabled->in-windows-server-2012-and-system-center-2012-sp1-virtual-machine-manager.asp
Solaris - Zones -- Check
http://blogs.technet.com/b/windowsserver/archive/2012/05/03/building-cloud-infrastructure-with-windows-server-2012-and-system-center-2012-sp1.aspx
I didn't read this whole link, but it just looks like a whitepaper on how to setup clouds using Windows?
That's not a feature, it's a whitepaper!
Give me a second to search on a Solaris Cloud Whitepaper....
Yes, there's some:
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/solaris11/documentation/whitepapers-1536169.html
Solaris - Cloud Whitepaper - Check
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/solaris11/documentation/o11-106-sol11-cloud-501066.pdf
Network virtualization. Really? Microsoft's delivered where Solaris has not?
Please see:
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/solaris11/documentation/o11-137-s11-net-virt-mgmt-525114.pdf
Solaris - Network virtualization - Check
So, could you please comment on where Microsoft has delivered and Solaris has not?
What makes it cloudy
It comes from a long line of vaporware...
"So thanks for the news, but what exactly makes it cloudy?"
Microsoft discovering virtualization... like two decades after Unix and four decades after mainframe.
My thoughts exactly. +1.
And for my secure Datacentre why would I want "cloud" anyway?
Personally, I'd much rather see a commercially available "hardened at the factory" fork, or a "hardened" option on the installer.
Re: re: These sort of things make it cloudy:
Solaris can only do SDN on a per host basis, not transparently across multiple sites.
It's working now, oh no it isn't....
They can't even make the errors user friendly!
Server Error in '/' Application.
Runtime Error
Description: An application error occurred on the server. The current custom error settings for this application prevent the details of the application error from being viewed remotely (for security reasons). It could, however, be viewed by browsers running on the local server machine.
Details: To enable the details of this specific error message to be viewable on remote machines, please create a <customErrors> tag within a "web.config" configuration file located in the root directory of the current web application. This <customErrors> tag should then have its "mode" attribute set to "Off".
<!-- Web.Config Configuration File -->
<configuration>
<system.web>
<customErrors mode="Off"/>
</system.web>
</configuration>
Notes: The current error page you are seeing can be replaced by a custom error page by modifying the "defaultRedirect" attribute of the application's <customErrors> configuration tag to point to a custom error page URL.
<!-- Web.Config Configuration File -->
<configuration>
<system.web>
<customErrors mode="RemoteOnly" defaultRedirect="mycustompage.htm"/>
</system.web>
</configuration>
Re: It's working now, oh no it isn't....
As it says, thats a security restriction. Either turn the restriction off as per the detailed instructions, or create the same error from the local console....
"Windows NT, which ushered in the era of client/server"
Pffft... Ackpbth....
It was neither the first, nor did it really work. Well, it gave us file sharing and printer sharing... which we had on the Mac network already. Meanwhile real client/server was done command-line-wise on the unix host and using X.
Nutella...
Is the same marketing droid who (in his keynote presentation at WPC Toronto) made the hilarious assertion that Microsoft "birthed the client server era". Regard the rest of his announcement as being equally accurate.
Re: Nutella...
To be fair, they did birth the era of charging you 10x as much for the same code by sticking "server" in the name and adding a registry key that limited the number of IP connections
Re: Nutella...
@Yet another...
Actually MS were the first cheap alternative to the stranglehold of Big Iron proprietary hardware/OS stacks. If you think that MS server OSes are expensive, you've clearly never seen UNIX server OSes.
Also, look at the support costs for, say, RHEL, server is much more expensive than workstation.
bit of a whinge...
Only been away from windows server admin since server 2003, but the newer server GUIs look like they've been designed by a committee as I totally couldnt find out how to find anything on the server 2008 GUI I has too look at the other day when all the normal guys were away, had to google everything! even basic things like the event log took a million more mouse clicks to open..
Not sure I like the direction MS is going, hope 2012 is more logical
Re: bit of a whinge...
"Not sure I like the direction MS is going, hope 2012 is more logical"
Don't hold you're breath, with MS its 'new ways to do familiar tasks' which is meaningless, what's really needed is 'familiar ways to do new tasks'.
bad server
Windows is slow, scales badly, when used for the London stock exchange, promptly crashed and cost 1 trillion in losses for the exchange (and Linux was quickly restored). Windows admins are mouse pushing monkeys, and you need four times as many of them to administer a machine. You need twice as many windows machines to do the right work. You need licences, and - worse, licence management, with untold complexity regarding cores and virtual machines licencing. Only mad people and PHBs and mouse monkeys choose windows on the server.
Re: bad server
Worst. Troll. Ever. I can't even be arsed to tell you how wrong you are about every single thing you said.
Re: bad server
Wrong about everything?
Here we have 90 odd *nix routers/servers with 1 unix admin
We also have about half that many Windows servers with three button clicking monkey admins to manage them, one of which who spends at least quarter of his time trying to keep on top of the licensing requirements.
This does not include the user support team.
Re: bad server
We have approx 700 windows servers and 2 windows admins. With a proper EA, licensing is something we only worry about once a year and we run a few quick reports to get the info we need. Since most servers are virtual on top of datacenter edition, there's not much to count.
Re: bad server
"Windows is slow, scales badly, when used for the London stock exchange, promptly crashed and cost 1 trillion in losses for the exchange (and Linux was quickly restored). "
Pretty uncontroversial. If you took away the Microsoft brand and put say Novell or CA's brand on the same software, no one would use it. Think about it. If you had MS Server 2008, brought it in as CA Server 2008 or NeverHeardOfThatSoftwareCompany Server 2008, would people buy it?
Re: bad server
@Goat Jam: Can you say "confirmation bias"?
Rather than slagg off all Windows admins, maybe you should look at getting a competent Windows admin at your place of work. Then again as you've got a history of slagging off Windows and MS from an ably demonstrated point of view of ignorance of the OS, I suspect you'll just keep slagging off.
Re: bad server
"Windows is slow, scales badly, when used for the London stock exchange, promptly crashed and cost 1 trillion in losses for the exchange (and Linux was quickly restored). "
As this didn't happen everywhere else Windows is used, do you think it's possible that the particular installation and the software run on it was the problem, rather than the OS? (As the report into the incident said)
With...
.. big-budget decision making resting solely in the hands of the unelightened few, it is irrelevant how impressive or accurate MS' claims are. They will be judged on their worse-than-appalling ability to provide even a remotely-secure retail OS.
RICHTO, console yourself in the fact that Unix is dieing. x86 + Windows will kill it as long as Moores Law continues.
Windows Server is actually pretty solid these days, and cheap as chips compared to AIX kit and anything from Oracle costs a kings ransome.
Non argument. From The Register today:
"Unix systems based on RISC or Itanium processors accounted for $2.15bn in revenues in the second quarter, down 17.9 per cent."
Dodo :)
x86 was over 9billion by comparison. Big Iron is a minority sport, which will become less and less used as Windows + x86 will be enough for most workloads.
hugh, are you the panto villain/troll?
"Oh no it won't......................"
At what point did you reach the conclusion that you have a clue?
Was head trauma involved?
This topic is closed for new posts.
