Skip to main content

VMware's Cloud VDC-OS a "groping in the dark" stint?

Timothy really wrote a cool post. Since Ashlee has left The Register, you just don't come across a well written post. I am by no means saying that Ashlee wrote any meaningful stuff (Its a joke, Ashlee) but he did make us all smile.

Heck its really cloudy out there, it doesn't make any sense and a lot of vaporware might float. Amazon is probably the only one that is seriously building a business around it. Google is beginning to work hard with Gear, AppEngine and a lot of other smaller vendors like 3Tera, ParaScale, FlexiScale are doing a great job there.

Update: Larry Ellison also state pretty honestly that "Hey. I'll do it if my marketeer's want it but I still don't get it!' Obviously the industry does not want to have some little start-yp like VMware steal the thunder under our very noses. Many have suggested that it will, gradually and stealthily, be 3Tera (my favorite firm as well, given that I really understand what they mean when they say that they will be providing the GDM-aware geo-locational apps). Anyways here are Larry Ellison's reactions on CC. That Forrestor's analyst too wanted to join the pitch but people are clearly forgetting that there is a steady shift towards scalable and cloudapps (the web 3.0 apps situated on the virtualization 3.5'ish framework).

Anyways here's what Timothy has to say about VMware's stint at Cloud Computing:

Whenever I see such announcements, I never see anyone say this:

Our product is not just about managing Linux and Windows, whether physical or virtual. But rather managing all kinds of servers in the installed base, and that includes AS/400s and mainframes, obscure open source Unix and Linux platforms, various middleware and database stacks, and the widest variety of storage and networking as is humanly possible.

And the reason why is we understand that for a data center-level operating system to work - whether it is virtual or not, and perhaps best called an uberating system - it has to be broad and deep in its coverage. We are not asking you to change your platforms, but rather facilitating your desire to keep your platforms and manage them better. And that is why we are dedicating more of our budget to provisioning, patching, updating, monitoring, and managing for a large number of platforms and less to executive salaries and the corporate jet.

VMware is really a Windows product at this point, with about 90 per cent of ESX Server shipments estimated to be on Windows platforms, which have been sorely in need of virtualization. And now that Microsoft has the freebie Hyper-V hypervisor out the door for Windows Server 2008, you know that VMware has to do everything in its power to change the subject. Which is how you get an incomplete set of announcements like the VDC-OS.

Then he continues...

But that means admitting that ESX Server is not the be-all, end-all, and that X64 servers are not the only machines that matter. And I think Maritz and his team, like Greene and her team (which included her co-founder, husband, and chief technology officer Mendel Rosenblum), have no interest in such a move. In fact, it seems to be beyond their comprehension.

Which means there is an opportunity waiting, just out of reach, for someone to try to grasp.
Source
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