Skip to main content

Virtualization: Scandal ahead?

A couple of mentions around VMware and XenSource's activities to get into the market and reach out to the consumer (you all know, I am putting it rather lightly) is making a lot of waves on the internet.

Most of them are open source developers. And they are angry, very angry!

There is a site maintaining VMware's house of cards and this techtarget blog talks about one such aggravated scenario.

So what’s been alleged?

To put it simply, there have been claims that VMware’s ESX server is, in fact, a derived work of the Linux kernel. As such and being closed source, it is not legally redistributable. There have been several examples of accusations being made in public forums and on mailing lists to which VMware have refused to respond.
Hellwig also responded on an open-scsi issue, which he maintains.

On the other hand, REdHat's developer is totally upset about the Xen going away with the XenSource. Redhat has stopped using the word Xen with it's Virtualization option. Oracle, Novell and the rest are all stuck with the Xen modules.

Drepper writes:

I hope everybody realizes the insanity of this:

  • If they really mean single application this must also mean single-process. If not, you'll have to implement an OS which can provide multi-process services. But this means that you either have no support to create processes or you rely on an mini-OS which is a front for the hypervisor. In VMWare's case this is some proprietary mini-OS and I imagine Xensource would like to do the very same.
  • Imagine that you have such application domains. All nicely separated because replicated. The result is a maintainance nightmare. What if a component which is needed in all application domains has to be updated? In a traditional system you update the one instance per machine/domain. With application domains you have to update every single one and not forget one.
And worst of all:
  • Don't people realize that this is the KVM model just implemented much poorer and more proprietary? If you invite drivers and all the infrastructure into the hypervisor it is not small enough anymore to have a complete code review. I.e., you end up with a full OS which is too large for that. Why not use one which already works: Linux.



Questions about the Deathly Hallows

  • Will KVM come to their rescue?
  • Won't KVM too quit on them?
  • Is open source really open source?
  • Will open source ever be taken seriously?
  • Will Virtualization suffer at the hands of developers?
  • Will Xen developers walk away, just like the famous Mambo case where they successfully launched Joomla!
  • Will VMware developers/engineers, as an analysts noted, sell their stock options and go to Hawaii?
  • This is what Ballmer meant when he called open source "cancer"?
  • Will Linus Torvalds take the Linux community and get it registered as Linux Inc.?
  • Will Unix go after Linux Inc. for stealing and modifying it's code?
  • Will Linux and Unix battle and both die?
  • Will...ok that's enough!!!
==========OR============

Someone out there is really heating up the pan and throwing drops of water in the oil. Someone jealous?

Anyways bottom line is: We are into a very hyper-disruptive era. When scandals will die down, when firms would have responded, kissed, and made up, we'd still be virtualizing. So take a break now and go watch some movies.
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