Skip to main content

Who should acquire XenSource?

And why? I had posted a link on the rumours about Microsoft buying XenSource and now this rumour is playing that Citrix (a major acquiree-wannbee itself - is that a word? Now it is!) is contemplating getting itself a hypervisor. Is it a bait for Microsoft or Oracle? Is XenSource wanting to cash-in, realizing that the market momentum is a way too much out of reach? Or is it time for the big war, remember the Big Blue is coming at you. All of you!

Brian reporting:

But should Citrix be hypervisor agnostic? Remember that Citrix calls Desktop Server a “DDI” solution, which they define as a solution can be used to deliver three types of desktops: multi-user (Terminal Server + Presentation Server), blades, and VMs. This is all well and good, but the reality is that as server power increases, people are not using blades for desktop delivery (except in extremely specific circumstances). Citrix already owns the multi-user shared desktop with Presentation Server. So why not also own the whole solution stack in the VM desktop space? Citrix is currently hypervisor agnostic because they don’t own a hypervisor.

Now imagine if Citrix did own a hypervisor. They could sell a single product that would truly deliver desktops to users no matter where they were. The customer would only have to provide their own Windows images to make this all happen—Citrix could handle the rest. (And again, Citrix components like Ardence could greatly simplify this process.) Thinking like this, it’s easy to see why Citrix would want to own a hypervisor too.


Why isn't anyone talking about a VirtualIron acquisition? Anyways here's the link, do however note that it is speculative.
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