back to article Microsoft pledges Linux boost for Windows Server and Center R2 duo

Microsoft has vowed Windows Server 2012 R2 and System Center 2012 R2 will be the “best” platform for running Linux in the cloud. Microsoft shops departing from the faith and running Linux will get a “consistent” experience on a par with its beloved Windows, Redmond promised. The software giant made the pledge to persuade …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Microsoft has vowed Windows Server 2012 R2 and System Center 2012 R2 will be the “best” platform for running Linux in the cloud."

    I'm sure dyed-in-the-wool Linux administrators will whole-heartedly agree.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I'm sure they won't, but Linux administrators don't make purchasing decisions.

      1. JEDIDIAH
        Devil

        Not like the Big Bang.

        Unix admins most certainly do make purchasing decisions. IT managers and executives don't just pop out of the ether. Linux is a well established server operating system for Fortune 100 companies as is the entire Unix family.

        Outside of mom and pop shops, the reach of Microsoft is limited.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Not like the Big Bang.

          "Outside of mom and pop shops, the reach of Microsoft is limited"

          Hmm, that's your credibility blown, then. You've got it the wrong way round:

          Administrators don't make purchasing decisions, outside of Mom'n'pop outfits and Fortune 500/FTSE100 companes have something like a 99% use of MS. Just because a company uses UNIX, doesn't mean they don't use MS, I have never even anecdotally heard of a non-heterogeneous company at this size.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Not like the Big Bang.

          In 30+ years of dealing with enterprise type software I have never found a UNIX/Linux admin ever make a purchasing decision. Maybe influence a decision, but never the final decision on which their reputation and the company's reputation rests. Equally never a Windows admin either. Different breeds of people.

          If is a 10 user company maybe – but over 100 users – never.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Not like the Big Bang.

          "Unix admins most certainly do make purchasing decisions."

          They might get to order the occasional new Boat Anchor, but most enterprise IT strategy decisions get made by people with more up-to-date skills sets these days...

          Hyper-V Server as the Hypervisor makes more sense than Linux - it is much more secure with far fewer vulnerabilities, a much smaller attack surface, has a lower TCO, has better management and monitoring tools, more powerful remote scripting via Powershell and it scales better (e..g 1 million IOPS in a single VM a year ago).

          Linux also still has to bolt the Hypervisor inside the Kernel, whereas Hyper-V Server is a proper distinct Hypervisor layer like vSphere.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Not like the Big Bang.

            "made by people with more up-to-date skills"

            What you mean like Vogons ?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Not like the Big Bang.

              "What you mean like Vogons ?"

              Well they do apparently have FTL travel and Hyperspace capability....in much the same way that bricks don't...

    2. nematoad
      Unhappy

      "Microsoft shops departing from the faith and running Linux will get a “consistent” experience on a par with its beloved Windows, Redmond promised."

      I bloody well hope not!

  2. hplasm
    Meh

    All the advantages of Linux

    With the downtime of Windows for reboots etc.

    Bargain.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: All the advantages of Linux

      That's a lame argument. If you can't schedule downtime to reboot a hypervisor at will, it's designed wrongly.

      Clusters and live migration are your friend. Even then, you don't really need to reboot Hyper-v any more than you would VMware.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: All the advantages of Linux

      consider a reboot as a test of your roll-over /clustering setup.

      If your operations can't handle a scheduled reboot, what are they going to do when they meet a genuine outage?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: All the advantages of Linux

        This is why, whenever I patch any box, Windows, UNIX, Linux, etc, I reboot it in the scheduled downtime. I'd far rather reboot something having made changes in scheduled down time than find that it won't reboot when something goes wrong and I've got unscheduled downtime.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: All the advantages of Linux

      "With the downtime of Windows for reboots etc."

      Hyper-V Server is a separate product from Windows Server, and it doesn't include Windows. The full featured product is also free.

      And unless you use a hack like Oracle's Ksplice, then Linux tends to require far more reboots than Windows Server if you patch immediately on release of critical vulnerabilities....

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: All the advantages of Linux

        "And unless you use a hack like Oracle's Ksplice, then Linux tends to require far more reboots than Windows Server if you patch immediately on release of critical vulnerabilities"

        Bull s---. Linux only needs to be rebooted when updating the kernel. Everything else being updated on linux does not require a reboot. Compared to Windows update mostly require a reboot after updates. Also on Windows often will act up if you do not reboot after updates. To make matters worse Windows often needs to be rebooted after installing applications, not so on linux.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: All the advantages of Linux

          @AC01:00 - This reboot fixation is rather odd. If you're not in a production environment, it doesn't really matter if you need to reboot or not. If you are in a production environment, you won't be patching while the system is live and my experiences with Ubuntu in particular say that even if you don't need to reboot - and you quite often do - you should be rebooting because you need to know if they've ballsed up the update and it won't reboot. This has happened twice to me with updates in the last couple of years and across three different hardware platforms I run Ubuntu on. You simply don't want to be discovering you can't reboot your machine down the line when you're either dealing with a production incident or you've installed a different update that does need a reboot.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: All the advantages of Linux

          "Linux only needs to be rebooted when updating the kernel. Everything else being updated on linux does not require a reboot"

          Right - and have you seen how many known Linux kernel vulnerabilities there are - well over 900! That's nearly double the total known vulnerabilities in the whole Windows XP OS (or about half the number in OS-X!)

          And that's not even allowing for functionality fixes, driver updates, etc....

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    “The dark side clouds everything. Impossible to see the future is.” - Yoda

    No idea why that came to me after reading this story.

    1. Roger Greenwood

      The word "embrace" came to me.

      1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Meh

        @ Roger Greenwood

        Yes my minor psychic ability is also seeing words forming in my mind.

        I see "enfold" and "extinguish"

        What can it all mean?

  4. Lee D Silver badge

    Damn right VMWare are your competition.

    I'm not claiming some major enterprise success here, but I just tried getting a Windows 3.1 program of mine to work. Ended up having to install Linux on a VM and then use Wine (irony level set to maximum). Windows 7 64-bit wouldn't touch it.

    And for the last month or two, I have been moving an Eclipse workspace of mine over to Linux. Nothing huge, just 100,000 lines of C over a hundred or so files. By the time I faff about with MinGW, Cygwin, hunting down a GCC for Windows-> ARM cross-compilation, and all the other junk just to do a cross-compile, it was easier to run a Linux VM under Windows and use "Unity Mode" so that Linux programs appear to be native Windows apps. And my compile times dropped like a stone compared to native Windows Eclipse attempting the same feat, even though I only allocate 2 of 8 cores to the VM. God knows how that works - presumably Linux is just better set up to handle thousands of small files.

    Also did all my test deployments of Windows 8 (new personal best of 2 hours from install to unrecoverable problem - somehow managed to put it on the domain but in a way that it refused both domain and non-domain logins and had no way to change it back) using VMWare, no way was I going to risk my personal machine on the free upgrade to 8 Pro I was given because I bought my laptop at the right time.

    Not sure I'll be able to live without VMWare in the future and, fact is, once I go down that path, if the host is Linux or it's Windows, it really doesn't make any difference. So it might as well be Linux, just to save the licensing hassle. Next time I buy a PC, I will go for VMWare from the start, and that would mean a Linux install first and Windows as a second-class VM citizen for when it's required.

    Servers moved that way years ago. It's now stupidly viable on the desktop. Hell, what the machine runs anymore isn't even limiting in terms of the apps you can put into the OS. My Ubuntu Eclipse is barely visible on my Windows desktop, and only because I left the VMWare signature window tag so I don't accidentally get confused between it and my Windows install.

    Quite why MS expects I'd pay for a MS licence of any kind to run Linux, I can't fathom. Surely if I really want to go down the VM route in terms of a datacenter, it's just easier to go the other way around from the very start?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      " I just tried getting a Windows 3.1 program of mine to work"

      Dosbox runs Win3.1 perfectly.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Oh and Hyper-v is free, no licence required.

      1. Miek
        Linux

        "Oh and Hyper-v is free, no licence required." -- Microsoft reserves the right to claim your soul at any time.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          I'd like to reserve the right to try to have a serious discussion on matters MS and Linux related on the Register...

          1. Bakunin
            Holmes

            "I'd like to reserve the right to try to have a serious discussion on matters MS and Linux related on the Register..."

            Good luck with that.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              I know, it's an aspiration, but this polarised tribalism really gets on my wick.

              1. Antonymous Coward
                FAIL

                >I'd like to reserve the right to try to have a serious discussion on matters MS and Linux related on the Register...

                >I know, it's an aspiration, but this polarised tribalism really gets on my wick.

                Yet you won't even post your little marketing burps without the cover of being AC. Please go away RICHTO. This endless whining hypocrisy is getting on MY wick.

                I realise everyone needs to make a living but can't you find a more honest, respectable job suited to your particular talent? Lawyer, politician, used car salesman, telesales, insurance agent... there must be something out there for you.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  I'm not RICHTO, who would fall into my definition of someone who can't seriously this subject discuss for exactly the same reasons as people who seem to perceive any suggestion that their chosen OS isn't perfect and all the others aren't utter rubbish as a personal attack. Especially when this results in them making personal attacks back. Wit: You suggest that someone is an anonymous shill, because you don't agree with you. Grow up.

                  Many of us have perfectly good reasons for posting AC, such as personal privacy and the fact that we're commenting about core areas which our companies work in and we're not toeing the company line. Personally I work for a very big IT hardware/software vendor who is majorly into FOSS. Commenting about our competitors could leave me in serious trouble if I did it with my real name.

                  1. Miek
                    Linux

                    "Commenting about our competitors could leave me in serious trouble if I did it with my real name." -- Then pick a handle stooopid!

                    Hint: It doesn't have to be your real name or use any personally identifying information.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      I'm happy commenting AC, you can usually guess who someone is, over time, with a handle should you have a bit of inside information, such as being their employer. My job is far more valuable to me than making a few commentators briefly happy, before finding something else to complain about.

      2. launcap Silver badge
        FAIL

        >Oh and Hyper-v is free, no licence required.

        Provided you have already bought Windows Server.. and all the many and various CALs that Microsoft deems it essential that you need before you can actually use it..

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @launcap - No, hyper-v is totally free, you don't need to purchase anything in order to get a Hyper-v hypervisor up and running.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Oh yeah? What do you run the management tools on then?

            1. TheVogon
              Mushroom

              "Oh yeah? What do you run the management tools on then?!"

              You could run Powershell commands from a Hyper-V Server host.

              Or you could run PASH on Linux....

              http://pash.sourceforge.net/

  5. Fehu
    Linux

    But...

    "Microsoft shops departing from the faith and running Linux will get a “consistent” experience on a par with its beloved Windows, Redmond promised."

    Isn't that why we left M$ for Linux in the first place? Some people find breaking up very hard to do.

  6. sisk

    Oh really?

    How to make money off Linux for Remondians:

    1) Make Linux run as well on Hyper-V as Windows does.

    2) Charge a licensing fee for each VM.

    3) Wonder why no one is using Hyper-V to run Linux.

    1. JDX Gold badge

      Re: Oh really?

      Some people don't object to paying for software...

      1. Miek
        Linux

        Re: Oh really?

        "Some people don't object to paying for software..." -- Some people don't object to writing software for the benefit of others instead of lining their own sticky little pockets.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Oh really?

          @Miek - Exactly what is wrong with writing software for a living?

          It's great if you do something and you want to give it away, but suggesting that there is something wrong with selling software is a bit off. Some people do have to feed themselves and the skills they have to do it are programming.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Oh really?

          Beyond dumb! So people shouldn't get a return on their endeavours?

          So who is writing the multi-company, multi-language, multi-currency, accounacy software that work in different financial regimes? You doing that for free I guess

        3. Miek
          Linux

          Re: Oh really?

          I buy software and licenses for stuff, it amazes what the proprietary world charges for. JDX was trying to make a link between free software users and software piracy, hence the remark.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @JDX - Re: Oh really?

        I agree with you but when that software is free, we call those people suckers.

      3. sisk

        Re: Oh really?

        Some people don't object to paying for software...

        True enough. Even I, as a Linux geek, don't object to paying for software. I do, however, object to paying a company for the privilege of running software that was written and given away by someone else when there is a less expensive, or even free, solution that is just as good for running said software.

      4. hplasm
        Meh

        Re: Oh really?

        Some people don't object to paying for crappy software...

        -that's the big problem.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Joke

      @Sisk

      Nah, this is Microsoft we're talking about. They follow an Enterprise business plan which is much more sophisticated and therefor much better than yours:

      1) Provide Linux support for Hyper-V

      2) ???

      3) Profit!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @Sisk

        Step 2) once there is a customer base, invent and charge for a boatload of CALs, for management tools, for servers, for cloud connections / for local connections, which when all combined add 30 per month per user or whatever our sales department think "what price the market will bear".

        You'd wonder why some game company hasn't tried to write an alternative Exchange server + client for SME. Would have though that there is a better return at less risk than a AAA title.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Oh really?

      "2) Charge a licensing fee for each VM."

      Nope - Hyper-v is completely free to use. With all features included like replication, software defined networking, etc..

      .You only need to license your guest OSs. Which of course will be more expensive than using Windows Server if you choose to use a supported enterprise Linux version....

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Huh?

    Why would you cripple Linux systems by running them atop Windows?

    If you have Linux skills, you have Linux skills. Use them.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Huh?

      Probably because you're a Windows house and you have a requirement for a modest amount of Linux to be run in your environment. Or because VMware is going to cost your company more than Hyper-V.

      In any case, Hyper-v has excellent performance, I run Linux boxes on both it and VMware and I can't tell the difference between the two.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @AC 14:55GMT - Re: Huh?

        Windows house needing Linux ? Do you really think we're that stupid to swallow that ?

        1. sisk

          Re: @AC 14:55GMT - Huh?

          Windows house needing Linux ? Do you really think we're that stupid to swallow that ?

          I work in a Windows shop. We have 2 Linux servers forced upon us when the vendor for our security camera system quit supporting the Windows version of their server. We could either replace $1.5 million worth of security cameras or set up a couple Linux servers. It was a no brainer.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @AC 14:55GMT - Huh?

            If you allow yourself to be bullied into Linux then you're not a reputable Windows shop. What's 1.5 million dollars when it comes about keeping a Windows shop pristine! :)

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Huh?

      "Why would you cripple Linux systems by running them atop Windows?"

      Because it scales better than any Linux based Hypervisor solution and has a lower TCO.

      nb - Hyper-V Server != Windows Server.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @AC 17:39GMT - Re: Huh?

        Lower TCO ? God, how come I didn't "Get the facts TM" !

  8. IGnatius T Foobar
    Linux

    Microsoft FAIL

    Absolutely no one would seriously consider running Linux on top of Windows. IT decision makers choose Linux because it is far more reliable than Windows, far more cost effective than Windows, and far more maintainable than Windows.

    Running a Linux guest on top of a Windows hypervisor removes most of the advantages of running Linux in the first place.

    1. JDX Gold badge

      Re: Microsoft FAIL

      Absolutely no one? So you are staking your reputation on there not being one single customer doing this?

      1. JEDIDIAH
        Linux

        Re: Microsoft FAIL

        The kinds of companies that want to run Windows, run Unix because Windows fails to get the job done.

        This kind of counteracts the notion that you would use your failed platform in order to run the one that it's replacing.

      2. Henry Blackman

        Re: Microsoft FAIL

        My organisation does it. We use Windows almost exclusively, virtualise everything, and run the odd Red Hat install when the application (or supplier) demands it. Otherwise it's Windows all the way.

        I used to be a FreeBSD dude, but slowly came to the conclusion you can't find Windows forever, when all the business systems integrate ONLY with AD, and when we did move over, I haven't looked back once.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Microsoft FAIL

          But aren't Microsoft in the process of downgrading active directory in favour of SCCM server and it's licenses.

          Might want to plan for when AD is forced into obsolescence.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Microsoft FAIL

            "But aren't Microsoft in the process of downgrading active directory in favour of SCCM server and it's licenses."

            Erm no. Not even remotely. Do you even understand what SCCM is?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Microsoft FAIL

      "...Running a Linux guest on top of a Windows hypervisor removes most of the advantages of running Linux in the first place...."

      Could you elaborate? Which advantages are removed by running Linux on Hyper-v, which aren't removed by running it on any other hypervisor?

      Hyper-v has something like 30% of the hypervisor market at the moment (for PC hardware) so I strongly suspect that there are a fair few companies running Linux on Hyper-v. Personally I run a few linux boxes on hyper-v in my home lab, I also run Windows on hyper-v and both on VMware.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @AC 15:26GMT - Re: Microsoft FAIL

        Like for instance no need to purchase licenses and no prospect of vendor lock-in ?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @AC 15:26GMT - Microsoft FAIL

          Except hyper-v is free, support costs, just like Linux. If you think you're not locked in to RedHat because you can go to CentOS or SuSE, think again.

          1. launcap Silver badge
            Stop

            Re: @AC 15:26GMT - Microsoft FAIL

            >Except hyper-v is free, support costs, just like Linux. If you think you're not locked in to RedHat because you >can go to CentOS or SuSE, think again.

            Hyper-V is free *if* you already have Windows Server..

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: @AC 15:26GMT - Microsoft FAIL

              No, hyper-v is totally free, you don't have to own anything by MS to allow you to use it, it's free.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: @AC 15:26GMT - Microsoft FAIL

                Really? How does one configure a VM without a copy of Windows to run the admin tools on?

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: @AC 15:26GMT - Microsoft FAIL

                  "Really? How does one configure a VM without a copy of Windows to run the admin tools on?"

                  By using Powershell from a Hyper-V Server host.

            2. TheVogon
              Mushroom

              Re: @AC 15:26GMT - Microsoft FAIL

              "Hyper-V Server is a dedicated stand-alone product that contains the hypervisor, Windows Server driver model, virtualization capabilities, and supporting components such as failover clustering, but does not contain the robust set of features and roles as the Windows Server operating system. As a result Hyper-V Server produces a small footprint and and requires minimal overhead."

              FREE download: http://www.microsoft.com/click/services/Redirect2.ashx?CR_EAC=300055432

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @AC 15:26GMT - Microsoft FAIL

            RedHat lock-in ? Either you don't know what vendor lock-in is or you don't know what RedHat is.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: @AC 15:26GMT - Microsoft FAIL

              Go on then, how can I get support - proper support, mind, with SLAs, pre-compiled binaries etc - for RedHat, without paying RedHat? I could move to CentOS, but you get the binaries, but no support, those paid for support services that are available for CentOS aren't up to the level of Red Hat's support and often commercial software doesn't support CentOS as an install platform. I can't really move to a Debian based distro, without a major ball ache - I've tried, it's not as easy as you might imagine - so I'm stuck with Red Hat.

              I don't really mind being stuck with them, but don't paint Linux as a system which allows free and easy movement between distros, it just doesn't.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @IGnatius T Foobar - Re: Microsoft FAIL

      Don't underestimate obtuse managers and/or stubborn Windows sysadmins. They are capable of this prowess.

      Oh, and be careful with those caps when speaking of Microsoft, especially when you spell fail that way. Take my advice, is for your own good.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @IGnatius T Foobar - Microsoft FAIL

        As a non obtuse or stubbon, what yearly budget do you command? Million plus?

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Microsoft FAIL

      "IT decision makers choose Linux because it is far more reliable than Windows, far more cost effective than Windows, and far more maintainable than Windows."

      Welcome to the 21st Century. Now that you are out the Delorian, it's time to learn that those days are long gone. These days, Windows Server scales better, has better clustering, is faster, has better scripting, has a more powerful and flexible security and auditing model, is a better Hypervisor, has a lower TCO in most enterprise uses, and has far fewer security vulnerabilities than any enterprise Linux distribution. Windows Server even has a better and faster clustered NFS 4.1 server than Linux!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Microsoft FAIL

        "These days, Windows Server scales better, has better clustering, is faster, has better scripting, has a more powerful and flexible security and auditing model, is a better Hypervisor, has a lower TCO in most enterprise uses, and has far fewer security vulnerabilities than any enterprise Linux distribution"

        Possibly, just possibly on Planet Vogsphere but nowhere else in the known universe !

        1. Getriebe

          Re: Microsoft FAIL

          "Possibly, just possibly on Planet Vogsphere but nowhere else in the known universe !" I guess you are trying to be funny, but have you been to a data centre running server after server of windows?

          As I have stated before on here I run an estate of just under 5,000 servers in three main datacentres around the world, all Windows, onto of which there is a lot of vms - and do you think we accept unplanned downtime? We started a few years ago on ESX and in the end threw it away because of the other geezer said - lower TCO all around.

          1. Antonymous Coward
            Windows

            Re: Microsoft FAIL

            Erm, you know that whole "TCO" marketing drive has been thoroughly debunked now?

            1. Getriebe

              Re: Microsoft FAIL

              @AC 7:51

              Was that aimed at me? If so, I am not working with marketing drive or opinion. I am working with real money and analysis of our considerable costs.

              So, erm, go do your own reserach

            2. TheVogon
              Mushroom

              Re: Microsoft FAIL

              "Erm, you know that whole "TCO" marketing drive has been thoroughly debunked now?"

              Erm - no it hasn't - there are recent examples like Munich council where IBM buried million of pounds - and they still havn't completed a migration after ten years!

              The most detailed study I have seen found that Linux was indeed cheaper for something - but only webservers. With the recent changes in Windows Server 2012 to support scale out web farms, large scale certificate management, etc. I suspect that even that niche is no longer cheaper with Linux.

              This is why no significant volume of corporates migrate to Linux. In fact far more go the other way - from Unix / Linux in the midrange to Windows Server.

  9. Miek
    Linux

    "Microsoft has vowed Windows Server 2012 R2 and System Center 2012 R2 will be the “best” platform for running Linux in the cloud." -- Wow, they must really want to spy on us and lift our data if they are prepared to not only support Linux but actually be the best at running it in the clouds.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      It's amazing how quickly a joke can get tedious.

      1. Miek
        Linux

        It's amazing how many ACs choose to post on this site nowadays, get's a bit tedious too.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Yeah, because "Miek" tells me exactly who you are and all the other handles you use and when you don't and you post as AC.

          As it happens, I stopped posting with my handle when someone said they thought they knew who I was and threatened to "test my security" and that of my employer. Since then I've changed employer and they have very strict rules about posting in forums which are related to the company's core business. As we're a hardware and software vendor I'm not going to be posting here with a handle any time soon.

          That said, I've been commenting here since you had to email the authors of the articles you wanted to comment about.

          1. Miek
            Linux

            What a load of Dribble, change your handle if you're concerned about your identity being found out: "Shock Horror". I assume someone could "test your security" regardless of knowing who you are or which handle you use.

            I have one handle on this site, why would I need another?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              @Miek - I would suggest that someone could use a second handle to agree with themselves for comments they've already made. They could use a second handle to insult people and not deal with being banned from commenting. We know that Eadon had at the very least two handles, possibly more.

              1. Miek
                Linux

                Why would *I* need another account, was the question. I use this account only, which self-regulates the desire to get too shouty and it lends a certain credibility to the account in comparison to the apparently disparate comments from ACs.

  10. silent_count
    Alert

    Going forward (as opposed to backwards?)

    “Going forward, Microsoft will continue..." -Eric Chapple

    The phrase "going forward", used in this context*, has got to be the most completely, totally, without exception and without equal the most redundant phrase in the English language. It's use indicates that the speaker is either unfamiliar with the language itself, unfamiliar with time as it applies to humans, or is too intellectually limited to parse a sentence before it comes out of their mouth.

    * I'm ok with cars going forward. Sometimes backwards too. Though hopefully not sideways because that usually results in people getting hurt.

  11. Nate Amsden

    it's a step in the right direction

    Though they got a ways to go still.. my company for example is currently on Ubuntu 10.04(not supported in Hyper-V apparently based on the article at least) 64-bit on top of vSphere 4.1 (though just about to start upgrading to 12.04 LTS).

    Was just looking at vSphere's linux supported list:

    http://www.vmware.com/resources/compatibility/search.php?deviceCategory=software&testConfig=16

    Just running a search for esxi 5.1 and all Linux OSs lists 211 results

    If I change it to 4.1U3 (what I run) that grows to 233 results.

    Obviously MS's angle is not for Linux-only shops to switch since none will. But in the case of shops that have a majority of windows and just a few linux hosts it may make sense. My small company is the inverse, at least as a % of total systems, windows VMs are probably about 8%(~40), the rest are Linux(~500). When we made the decision to go vSphere I didn't have enough faith in Hyper-V or RHEV to commit to it at the time(hundreds of millions of revenue at stake). RHEV is looking pretty decent these days, though there's no

    need to make any changes right now. My upgrade from vsphere 4.1 will likely be to RHEV though whenever that ends up happening.

    1. MissingSecurity
      Thumb Up

      Re: it's a step in the right direction

      We use RHEV. I took the chance on it (Partly due to budget) and shifted to RHEV 3.2. The interface is a little more simplistic than VMware or Hyper-V but I really am happy about the purchase. We run mostly RHEL 6 for servers, but we have some Windows running on it also and haven't had any problems.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Big mistake to trust Microsoft with regards to Linux

    Microsoft = closed = not going to support Linux forever.

    So.. why would I want to bank on a company that is going to promise temporary functionality?

    Works with Linux today... I'll promise you that it won't work with Linux tomorrow. Microsoft will not open up enough to ensure long term Linux platform support. It's simply not built into their ideology.

    Big mistake for anyone who goes this route.

    1. Getriebe

      Re: Big mistake to trust Microsoft with regards to Linux

      If someone like Nate Amsden (with his usual spot on post) were to choose Hyper-V do you not think he would ensure there is a long term support in place? People with big estates, like him in *ix and me in Win don't make moves based on some unwritten gentlemans agreement. You shouldn't worry for us, we agree life cycles for many years ahead.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Big mistake to trust Microsoft with regards to Linux

        " but have you been to a data centre running server after server of windows?

        As I have stated before on here I run an estate of just under 5,000 servers in three main datacentres around the world, all Windows"

        I don't think Google and a host of others will be too impressed by a piddling 5000

    2. Antonymous Coward

      Re: Big mistake to trust Microsoft with regards to Linux

      How does it go now?

      Embrace...

      Extend...

      ????

  13. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Facepalm

    Holy s**t for after working hours there sure are a *lot* of ACs here.

    Microsoft/VMWare PR departments out in force laying a bit of astroturf?

    Surely not.

  14. CalmHandOnTheTiller
    Pint

    MS provide CentOS support when running it commercially as a guest on Hyper-V

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/16/microsoft_centos/

    They helped me set up my CentOS Cluster on top of Hyper-V.

  15. Mr. Peterson

    CROW! It's what's for dinner!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsdv4AJdzdU

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This article hurt my brain. Why would I use Hyper V when Hyper V is more expensive than Vmware? With Vmware I don't need an expensive Windows license either so this gets even cheaper... I set up and run a cold Linux sans Xorg with Vsphere, takes like 10 minutes if you don't have an image already. If you do its even quicker, boot Linux, enter Vsphere licensing, run Linux "in the cloud" in virtual machines. Neither Windows or Hyper V is required for this. Windows Server unlimited is like $5000 USD, knock on each Hyper V license and you are looking at $2000 per license extra. So each system would need $7000 in licensing fees not to mention you are locked into 1 OS, you cant change this to OS X, or another Linux distribution. Not to mention tacked on hidden fees when you call them for support. If you run anything but Windows, that support cost is doubled. No Mac OS X support either.

    For VSphere 1 server without load sharing (which is all that is required) is $520USD, the 3 host one is more expensive, $4000USD but you can use the same license on up to 3 servers sharing the same load, with Windows you have to have a separate license for each server or blade. Windows does not support load sharing by the way, so if 1 server gets overloaded, it simply hands it off to another, where vmware acts more like raid ALL THE TIME, so your network is far less clogged. For each workstation fee you are looking at $249, so in essence if you can get away with the cheapest setup. Vmware unlimited is only $6340, this includes unlimited installs of workstation, vmware server, and vsphere, 1 year of service, and if you have a as one of the Spheres, you can essentially run OS X in the cloud and access it via any workstation whether it has an apple logo on it or not.

    I am not a fanboy and you can do all this even cheaper if you do it all by hand in Linux via it's own services, most of which are even free! Mac also has these services built in for free, and if you pay a $999 developer fee you can host OS X unlimited, and run any OS, Windows, Linux, or OS X in the cloud. This is of course not counting the hidden support costs Apple charges, but $1000USD isnt expensive if you can do it on your own.

    In conclusion if you begin to shop around, Microsoft begins to look very ugly, and much better options exist. I hate the register and I am going to stop reading the articles posted on here because they are all bullcrap.

    1. TonyJ

      Except Hyper-V is free.

      You only need to license Windows guests. And in their haste, many people often overlook the enhanced licensing you get when running Windows guests on a supported hypervisor platform.

      And your data is somewhat out of date - look at Hyper-V 3.0 functionality.

      VMware load balancing and DRS also simply hands off guests to another host if the current host is too resource constrained.

      Let's not forget too, that the 3-server versions of VMware are constrained by features and - again a point oft overlooked - if the time comes when you need to upgrade, you also have to buy the management server as a separate and quite expensive component...VMware is not cheap in the enterprise.

      There are other alternative hypvervisor platforms out there - Citrix or non-Citrix Xen, KVM etc.

      You could always select the appropriate software for yourself by assessing which matches skill sets, features, price points etc.

      Or take the usual foaming at the mouth option of most of the people posting here and choose only your favourite technology because vendor x is bad.

  17. John-IT-Guru

    No Linux SysAdmin will buy into this rubbish

    So let's see what Micrsoft wants to do is get Linux server SysAdmins to pay $2000 for their WindoZe iis server then allow the iis server to run a Linux VM?

    Redmonds problem: Windows server market share is dwarfed in comparison to Linux server market share. Not to mention the difference in Linux stability.

    In other words take a perfect Linux server OS on a VM which resides on a Linux server which has average uptime of years and not minutes and run a Linux VM on a MicroKlunk platform that will force Linux to have almost no uptime as the Host i.e. The WindoZe iis server is constantly having to be rebooted.

    Totally ridiculous!

    How dumb is this? Who in their right mind would even consider paying money to Microsoft so they can ruin the far more superior and free Linux VM server business.

    NO ONE. This is another Zune, a Bob, Windows 8, and the list is growing rapidly.

    What are they smoking in Redmond these?

    Call the Police and report a 420.!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: No Linux SysAdmin will buy into this rubbish

      I think you've missed the point. Hyper-v is a hypervisor, it's also free. You don't need to install Windows in order to use Hyper-v, although you can run it on top of a Windows installation. You certainly don't need IIS installed in order to run a Linux VM.

      Then again, does a real "IT Guru" actually call OSes names and suggest that Linux is "perfect". I think not.

      1. launcap Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: No Linux SysAdmin will buy into this rubbish

        >I think you've missed the point. Hyper-v is a hypervisor, it's also free. You don't need to install Windows in >order to use Hyper-v, although you can run it on top of a Windows

        Hyper-V is part of Windows Server. You require Windows Server on the host in order to run Hyper-V.

        1. El Andy

          Re: No Linux SysAdmin will buy into this rubbish

          I think you've missed the point. There is a free standalone Hyper-V Server which you can use to run Linux guests at zero cost. In fact, the only reason to use a paid-for Windows Server licence for virtualization is to take advantage of the fact certain SKUs offer a number of free Windows licenses for guest OS's, which can confer significant savings in many scenarios.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: No Linux SysAdmin will buy into this rubbish

          @Launcap - Right, I could accept you banging out about Hyper-v costing because it's part of Windows, as no-one has explicitly said that it isn't, up until now, but it you would have read the comment you quoted it explicitly says:

          Hyper-v is a hypervisor, it's also free. You don't need to install Windows in order to use Hyper-v, although you can run it on top of....

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: No Linux SysAdmin will buy into this rubbish

          "Hyper-V is part of Windows Server. You require Windows Server on the host in order to run Hyper-V."

          Hyper-V Server DOES NOT REQUIRE WINDOWS SERVER:

          http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/30/hyper_v_powershell_hands_on/

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Enough already

    I have read all these comments and what I have learned so far is that:

    Linux is better than Windows because its more reliable and doesn't need all those nasty reboots. The TCO for Linux is lower.

    Windows is better than Linux because its more reliable and doesn't need all those nasty reboots. The TCO for Windows is lower.

    People in Windows shops don't run Linux except when they do, and that is perfectly normal.

    People won't use Hyper-V because of the licensing cost. Hyper-V is free.

    Linux is also free except when its not.

    It seems equivalent to:

    My My Little Pony (tm) is better than your My Little Pony (tm) because its a nicer shade of pink and the yellow nylon tail is 0.004mm longer.

    P.S. My My Little Pony (tm) does make purchasing decisions

    1. TonyJ

      Re: Enough already

      More like 'My My little pony(tm)" is better than your 'Action Man(tm)' because it's different and I love it and yours blows. Nah nah nah.

      At the end of the day, this is The Reg forums. It isn't the place for reasoned debate whereby both sides of the story let alone the facts ever get in the way of a good foaming rant!

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like