Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Feedback
View Statistics
Members
Current visitors
Buy Sell Trade
WTB
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to thread
Forums
Technology
Computer Software
Microsoft Hyper-V Leaves Linux Out In The Cold
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="KingKrool" data-source="post: 454006" data-attributes="member: 261"><p>How about looking at the statement I made in context? It is a problem for Microsoft if they even want to interoperate in a safe fashion. Why don't you look at the recent GPL/non-GPL argument over ndiswrapper? It makes these issues complex, which means MS is obviously going to be cautious about how they proceed. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Interesting, since MS bought Connectix several years ago, and was actually looking to acquire VMWare (the price was too high in their opinion). </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You seem to be confused as to what I said.</p><p></p><p>I claimed that hypothetically, MS has no real bone with the release of integration components under a GPL license. The things is, the ICs make calls into hyper-v. Is Hyper-V then a derivative work? Obviously not. But that doesn't stop lawsuits from happening. Look at the Xen code and you'll see that they've added a note to explain that calls into the hypervisor are NOT a derivative work! They had to go that far to clarify it. Releasing the ICs under any other license is no use - they would still be marked as tainted. As for fanatics, well the FSF tried to claim that MS had become a Linux distributor thanks to the GPL v3. I have no problems with the new provisions they added, but trying to claim that makes MS a Linux distributor is disingenuous (and I felt so at the time back when I never thought I'd be working for MS in any capacity).</p><p></p><p>Simple way to get around all of this - let someone else take care of the ICs. And they let XenSource do that. Frankly I'd guess that the ICs would ultimately be released under the GPL anyway. ICs are pretty brain dead code for the most part since the tougher work is done on the backend (i.e within the hypervisor and parent partition). MS has anyway released the specs for their hypervisor, so anyone can write ICs anyway. Or indeed, you can write your own version of the hypervisor from that spec (it is remarkably well specified).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Where did competition talk come in from? Why are you going off track? BTW, FreeBSD existed well before Linux, and is arguably a better product with FreeBSD 7.0.</p><p></p><p>This article claimed MS is not supporting Linux on their product. I rebutted that argument. I explained why support for more Linux distros will take time. Why is this now turning into a more general debate on Linux vs Windows?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="KingKrool, post: 454006, member: 261"] How about looking at the statement I made in context? It is a problem for Microsoft if they even want to interoperate in a safe fashion. Why don't you look at the recent GPL/non-GPL argument over ndiswrapper? It makes these issues complex, which means MS is obviously going to be cautious about how they proceed. Interesting, since MS bought Connectix several years ago, and was actually looking to acquire VMWare (the price was too high in their opinion). You seem to be confused as to what I said. I claimed that hypothetically, MS has no real bone with the release of integration components under a GPL license. The things is, the ICs make calls into hyper-v. Is Hyper-V then a derivative work? Obviously not. But that doesn't stop lawsuits from happening. Look at the Xen code and you'll see that they've added a note to explain that calls into the hypervisor are NOT a derivative work! They had to go that far to clarify it. Releasing the ICs under any other license is no use - they would still be marked as tainted. As for fanatics, well the FSF tried to claim that MS had become a Linux distributor thanks to the GPL v3. I have no problems with the new provisions they added, but trying to claim that makes MS a Linux distributor is disingenuous (and I felt so at the time back when I never thought I'd be working for MS in any capacity). Simple way to get around all of this - let someone else take care of the ICs. And they let XenSource do that. Frankly I'd guess that the ICs would ultimately be released under the GPL anyway. ICs are pretty brain dead code for the most part since the tougher work is done on the backend (i.e within the hypervisor and parent partition). MS has anyway released the specs for their hypervisor, so anyone can write ICs anyway. Or indeed, you can write your own version of the hypervisor from that spec (it is remarkably well specified). Where did competition talk come in from? Why are you going off track? BTW, FreeBSD existed well before Linux, and is arguably a better product with FreeBSD 7.0. This article claimed MS is not supporting Linux on their product. I rebutted that argument. I explained why support for more Linux distros will take time. Why is this now turning into a more general debate on Linux vs Windows? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Technology
Computer Software
Microsoft Hyper-V Leaves Linux Out In The Cold
Top
Bottom