Re: Why Hyper-V is a non-starter in all situations
For me, this was the point of the article - virtualization is solved problem, management is the next battlefield. And so far MS SCxxx is what's killing Hyper-V.
From what I've seen (in a mixed shop, half Linux/Unix, half Windows), you need 60% more Windows sysadmins for comparable server landscape. on virtualization, Hyper-V seemed to take at least 100% more work compared to VMWare - we had it for 4 years but killed it off because of this.
Major difference is that Linux guys typically also do SAN, backup and storage, so turn out to be at least 100% more effective for the money. There are such multitasking Windows guys (and gals) but those are much much rarer beasts.