Skip to main content

LinkedIn Discussion: With Cloud Computing/CloudApps, why would one invest in Desktop Virtualization?

VDI solutions, however attrative they may seem and the amount of energy they may save ar, still remains a rather conversational issue to tackle within organizations. When it comes to loads of these applications, no one has a clear answer or gusrantee that those big and fat applications will run smoothly like ever before.

VDI seems to focus too much of its attention on the OS and most organizations choose nothing to be altered, all they care is the promise that was made by the party that won the bid, to do everything in its might to "make it happen!"

The consulting team is finding all the ways, software, tools etc to just make it happen. Who are we kidding? Why can't we just do things easier and simpler. If CloudApps or hosting Apps on Clouds is the best solution, then why not adopt it? Why go after bundling the whole OS+App (+ another 50 odd irrelevent apps*) and put them up on loads of servers.

* Every VDI project or even Server project I've come across I've only found that too many apps exist on desktops that are barely justified.

Please feel free to participate in the discussion here at LinkedIn
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