Skip to main content

Application Virtualization has management potential?



The big news was the addition of application streaming to create a new version, SVS Professional, using AppStream's technology. Where SVS had installed layers locally on desktop machines before, now they can be streamed down on demand, with a high degree of control over what happens to them. On office desktops, for example, a set of applications may be represented as icons, and a layer acquired on demand may represent only a temporary instance of the app, and when it's closed it goes back into a managed pool on the server. If the user's computer is a laptop, on the other hand, the user probably wants the layer installed permanently so it can be used offline. There's lots of room for creative customization of services here.


Honestly I am banking on thin light weight Virtual Appliance Desktop Infrastructure. Think of it this way. You have an ESX Desktop version on a quad-core PC. You have some very totally different needs. We segregate the needs and provide you with several versions of appliances. You log in to the PC and can run those appliances at your own will. I am not saying that Application virtualization isn't that good. All I'm saying is that we need to isolate the VM so that it is "totally secure".

Anyways read ahead...
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Security: VMware Workstation 6 vulnerability

vulnerable software: VMware Workstation 6.0 for Windows, possible some other VMware products as well type of vulnerability: DoS, potential privilege escalation I found a vulnerability in VMware Workstation 6.0 which allows an unprivileged user in the host OS to crash the system and potentially run arbitrary code with kernel privileges. The issue is in the vmstor-60 driver, which is supposed to mount VMware images within the host OS. When sending the IOCTL code FsSetVoleInformation with subcode FsSetFileInformation with a large buffer and underreporting its size to at max 1024 bytes, it will underrun and potentially execute arbitrary code. Security focus
Post a Comment
Read more

OS Virtualization comparison: Parallels' Virtuozzo vs the rest

Virtuozzo's main differentiators versus hypervisors center on overhead, virtualization flexibility, administration and cost. Virtuozzo requires significantly less overhead than hypervisor solutions, generally in the range of 1% to 5% compared with 7% to 25% for most hypervisors, leaving more of the system available to run user workloads. Customers can also virtualize a wider range of applications using Virtuozzo, including transactional databases, which often suffer from performance problems when used with hypervisors. On the administration side, customers need to manage, maintain and secure just a single OS instance, while the hypervisor model requires customers to manage many OS instances. Of course, the hypervisor vendors have worked hard to automate much of this process, but it still requires more effort to manage and maintain multiple operating systems than a single instance. Finally, OS virtualization with Virtuozzo has a lower list price than the leading hypervisor for comme...
Post a Comment
Read more