digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

VMware joins Linux Foundation

computerworlduk.com — Virtualisation giant VMware has announced that it has joined the Linux Foundation, lining up alongside existing members such as Adobe, Google and IBM.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • seandfeeney, on 08/08/2008, -1/+30In case you are not sure why VMware would join the linux foundation, it is because VMware has its own native server called the ESX server which has a very basic stripped down version of linux as it's back bone.
    • angrysquirrelx, on 08/08/2008, -0/+10Partially true. The Console OS is not the backbone. ESX 3i is ESX without the Linux portion and that is the free ESX. ESX uses the console OS to manage 3.0 and 3.5. 3i utilizes the CLI for management from other machines or a virtual appliance.
    • paradexes, on 08/08/2008, -0/+11Thats not exactly accurate. The console is linux based. The kernel is a proprietary product hence the limited support for specific hardware. Try installing a regular RPM (from RPMfind) in ESX and watch what happens.

      That said there are alot of FOSS elements in VMware products judging from all the free code on their site.

      • ohplease, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1

        I've installed perl update RPMs in VMWare ESX 3 no problem.


      • mrsteveman1, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2I assume you are talking about vmkernel, right? Things aren't so clear as they would seem, in the past at least (prior versions), it loaded the Linux kernel first and then vmkernel.

        Wiki still describes ESX as using some Linux drivers. Those drivers are GPL'd. So either vmwares kernel isn't really a kernel and didn't really take over for the Linux kernel, or they are (or were) using GPL'd drivers linked to a closed source kernel of their own making.

        VMwares docs aren't really clear on any of this either, and from what limited info i could find about it back a few months ago it all seemed quite shady.

        "An ESX system starts a Linux kernel first, but it loads vmkernel (also described by VMware as a kernel), which according to VMware 'wraps around' the linux kernel, and which (according to VMware Inc) does not derive from Linux."

        "On ESX versions 1 and 2, no VMkernel processes run on the system during the boot process.[11] After the Linux kernel has loaded, the S90vmware script loads the vmkernel.[11] VMware Inc states that vmkernel does not derive from Linux, but acknowledges that it has adapted certain device-drivers from Linux device drivers. The Linux kernel continues running, under the control of the vmkernel, providing functions including the proc file system used by the ESX and an environment to run support applications. [11] ESX version 3 loads the VMkernel from the Linux initrd, thus much earlier in the boot-sequence than in earlier ESX versions."
    • richbleak, on 08/08/2008, -9/+3That isn't completely in line with the truth. *Insert pedantry here*
    • theOster, on 08/08/2008, -2/+1nm
    • KungFuJ35u5, on 08/08/2008, -8/+1That's not why. The real reason is to compete with Sun's VirtualBox, a free and open-sourced virtual machine.
      • specialK16, on 08/08/2008, -1/+3lulwut
      • paradexes, on 08/08/2008, -1/+3Inform yourself next time. But here is some education. They already have FOSS code, and extensive partnerships with various vendors. This move makes sense on alot more levels than to compete with vbox.
      • nmnnotmyname, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1VMware = Server product with more server features than VirtualBox can dream of
        Virtualbox = User product with more User features than VMWare (though the lack of D3D emulation or OGL accel of any sort is sort of annoying. But don't believe me? Compare the options and devices in Virtualbox to Vmware - Virtualbox is much more user friendly for a lot of tasks - i love it)
    • JasonCox, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2You actually answered the exact question I was going to ask; thanks!
    • TehFURY, on 08/08/2008, -0/+0ESX 3.5 is a complex hypervisor inside of a tuned version of redhat linux.

      ESXi is the future of Vmware's ESX line up and there isn't a real console on it anymore, you have to use VirtualCenter to manage it. ESXi is the future because there is no need to have an exploitable surface so broad at the hypervisor level. ESX is several gigabytes and ESXi is 32MB's of code total.
      • spectre_25gt, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Considering it doesn't run a linux kernel, I don't really think that you can call it linux. It does, however, make heavy use of Redhat userspace components for its service console.
    • Elranzer, on 08/08/2008, -0/+4Why is Adobe part of this consortium? It can't just be for ports of FlashPlayer and Reader.
      • Keithamus, on 08/08/2008, -0/+6As soon as I read that I protested out loud.

        Adobe has the worst linux support of any third party software vendor. Flashplayer sucks, adobe reader sucks, anything else is non-existant.

        ***** you adobe.
    • PuppyKicker, on 08/08/2008, -1/+0The ESX back bone as you call it is not linux based. Only the ESX management console is powered by a Linux kernel.
  • zadadka, on 08/08/2008, -1/+8I play with VMware at home quite a lot, but I'm obliged to use Microsoft's HyperV at work due to Partnership obligations ... it's just not nearly flexible enough :(

    I also remember VMware stocks being a highly sought commodity around a year ago...this explains some of that, I guess.
    • FutureGuy, on 08/08/2008, -5/+1you must be living on a different planet. VMware is struggling as a company. This almost seems like a desperate effort to stay afloat.

      http://seekingalpha.com/article/84568-vmware-is-th ...
      • zadadka, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1I didn't and don't analyse share situations and how they come to be (TBH, it leaves me cold)... I just recounted a (now shown accurate) recollection...
        ...but an interesting article, thanks.
      • Treoinmypocket, on 08/08/2008, -0/+4That's an intersting article but actually ignores the elephant in the room - EMC is in trouble.

        NetApp was 12 times smaller than EMC 2 years ago. Now they are only four times smaller. EMC is struggling to respond the NetApp's Deduplication and storage virtualization (not to mention the markets ever growing distaste for proprietary solutions). Add to that the fact that there isn't an EMC Storage device on the planet that is more than 36% utilized and you have some serious issues.

        Then there's the impact of SUN on EMC. SUN insatallations either have EMC or Hitachi storage attached and SUN is going into the toilet fast. I don't know one enterprise class CIO with SUN in their environment who isn't seriously concerned with SUN's direction.

        Why does that effect EMC? Because when you are willing to look at the server platform as not set in stone, you get hit in the face with the the real cost of EMCs antiquated technology.

    • jabberwolf, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2"you must be living on a different planet. VMware is struggling as a company. This almost seems like a desperate effort to stay afloat."

      No same planet. Vmware is totally dominant on the Enterprise scene,, and MS is struggling trying to push their HyperV. Vmware has struggled because they have has monstrous sales.. but not as monstrous as the stock market wanted them to have. That's all.

      MS got in because HyperV was free, now iESX is free. MS is now competing with that. Good luck! lol
      • Treoinmypocket, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3MS HyperV isn't enterprise worthy and is, like most MS products...'good enough'...not actually transformative.
      • mrBitch, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1@jabber RE: "Vmware has struggled because they have has monstrous sales.. but not as monstrous as the stock market wanted them to have. That's all."

        My god, I can't believe it! You actually spoke the truth! I dug you up!

        Either jabber actually said something that indicates he has some understanding of the subject at hand - or someone has spiked my drink...
  • drunkenirish, on 08/08/2008, -0/+13Just got my first ESX Server and I'm loving it...easy to configure and their support is amazing. I had a problem getting my CD Drive to mount and after putting in a ticket, support called me in about 2 minutes to get the problem solved. So glad to see that they've joined up.
    • jabberwolf, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Basics of Vmware are easy.
      The networking gets a little trickier.
      And the licensing... will drive you mad! Make sure you get a good rep.
  • erichw1504, on 08/08/2008, -21/+1Reply with an internet meme to this comment.
    • theOster, on 08/08/2008, -1/+6***** you, 2 of my friends died from internet memes
  • YodaJones, on 08/08/2008, -16/+5Cool news. Microsoft needs to go down.
    • DestroyFascism, on 08/08/2008, -3/+11No they don't. They just need to face up to the fact they over charge somewhat for a polished turd, that thier tactics are not for the benefit of all and that ignoring open source is denying innovation to their clients, not just the people who use OS technology. Without Apple and MS the world would be flat again, and that is not what the world needs. It needs compatible technology, Innovation, affordability and standards that work regardless of OS, media and application.
      • theaceoffire, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1Exactly, MS makes decent OS's.

        They only have issues when they spend more time on Marketing and Appearance and forget the core, important issues.

        An OS should be : Fast, Invisible (A platform for programs), and Stable.

        XP SP2 was darn close to an ideal OS, and is very stable, (Can be) quick, and doesn't bother you a lot (popups, are you sure, etc).

        If they can take Windows 7 and focus a bit, I might buy a copy (Would love a gaming partition with a newer file system)
  • nextag82, on 08/08/2008, -15/+2y is this on the front page?
    • AtomB, on 08/08/2008, -2/+8Because people dugg it stupid.
    • seandfeeney, on 08/08/2008, -0/+9Maybe because digg was originally geared towards computer geeks and still has the majority of them as users..
    • Erythroxylum, on 08/08/2008, -3/+3Because it's important! Much more important than something like - oh, I don't know - Russia invading Georgia or something tedious and irrelevant like that. This is some fringe computer operating system we're talking about here for God's sake!
    • SteveMax, on 08/08/2008, -0/+8- Because it's big tech news, and Digg's audience in general is interested in technology.
      - Because enough people clicked the "Digg It" button and not many people clicked the "Bury" one
      - Because there is a global conspiracy to promote VMware to the front page of Digg and therefore to WORLD DOMINATION!!!1!11

      Take your pick.
    • CoMpUtErITGuY, on 08/08/2008, -4/+2Don't worry. I buried it.
    • ChronicColonic, on 08/08/2008, -0/+4I tech article on front page...this is shades of how Digg used to be and it is quite refreshing.
    • JasonCox, on 08/08/2008, -0/+5Because geeks read Digg and we like tech news.
  • jellygraph, on 08/08/2008, -10/+3Xen, bitches
    • harmil, on 08/08/2008, -0/+4Xen is the core of a virtualization product. Even some of the basic functionality offered by VMware isn't supported by Xen. That's not to say Xen is useless, but I wouldn't want people to make the mistake of thinking that all virtualization products do the same thing any more than all OS do the same thing.

      • killerninja, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1Xen Server sucks ass compared to ESX.
      • nixfu, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1Actually XEN pretty much matches ESX feature by feature...but KVM is the future.

      • jabberwolf, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2XEN does not match VMWARE.
        Citrix is taking a strange desktop approach for virtualization but not really on the server side.

        If you want to split up what they are targeting:
        VM: mostly Server som VM network-side
        XEN: Mostly desktop-side

        KVM is .. well cute for desktop rollouts but lacks the VM networking, the HA, and the live replication abilities with databases. Its a kid playing with the adults.
      • mrBitch, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1*****! I had to dig jabber up AGAIN...
        @jabber : can you please go back to making stupid statements - this is unnerving me...
      • jellygraph, on 08/09/2008, -0/+21st point, we use Xen for virtualization of everything at our company, from web servers, to database servers, to lead balancing and HA etc. It's proven itself to me. Xen rocks.

        @harmil: well, do tell me what basic features vmware has that xen can't do. I'd be interested in hearing it. never used VMware for server stuff, but from talking to other people, they weren't so impressed with the networking performance.

        @jabberwolf: I do believe you are mistaken. Xen is not targetting the desktop side. They are just trying to make improvements to support it better. Xen is all about server virtualization.

        @killlninja: yeah... um, ok
    • nixfu, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1KVM BITCH!

  • petaganayr, on 08/08/2008, -7/+1Awesome...now, if only VMWare training is cheap. I hope they would make VMWare Desktop free.
  • paradexes, on 08/08/2008, -0/+6ESX3i is free now :P might be a good thing to get if you want to play with it. Maybe not free GPL free, but free as in you dont have to pay a dime free.
    https://www.vmware.com/tryvmware/login.php?eval=es ...
    • secrity, on 08/08/2008, -3/+1Registration requires that I divulge lots of marketing information, no thanks
    • nanboya, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Thanks for the heads up. If I'm running a Linux box to support VMware server, I may as well look at this instead.
    • SaciPerere, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1all it needs to do now is WORKS. I tried on two different machines, none worked
  • ChayesFSS, on 08/08/2008, -0/+5I run both VMWare and VBox at home and without a doubt, vbox rocks for most of my personal needs. If I ever want to run OSX though it's right over to the vmware machine though, what gives?
    • WildTang3nt, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2I was a huge VMware supporter (still am, actually), but I too have started using Vbox, and it's just as good, if not better in certain areas, but the same is true of VMware. They both have their advantages and disadvantages. What I'm really glad about is the amount of competition there is in the virtualization business, and the best part is a lot of it is free now!
  • tange1, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3Is anyone else confused about the 'new certification' - VMware Certified Professional? This cert has existed for a long time already. Posting this from a VMware course - esx 3.5 fast track course - NYC
    • killerninja, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2I don't think the article was saying the VCP is a new cert, but in addition to the VCP are some new certs, such as the Design Expert one. Good luck with the course, I just got my VCP in June, the test's not that bad.
    • tange1, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1I dont even think the Design Expert is new as the course instructors here talked about it already.
    • jabberwolf, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Here too with my cert, though really means nothing unless you are using it in practice as with all certs.
      Plus start using all the apps, backup products and get SAN experience if you wanna beef up that resume with vmware.

      • bipolarruledout, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1You can demo most vmware products free for non-commercial use but you do need to register with them. I'm sure they won't have a problem if your trying to get certified. The bigger question is WHY get certified in this? Virtualization is not very complicated from an administration standpoint and I just can't see it adding much value.
  • CoMpUtErITGuY, on 08/08/2008, -12/+3Good for them. Hyper-V is way better though!
    • arigneysd, on 08/08/2008, -3/+2you gotta be kidding me? why would hyper-V be better? first of all it's not a barebone hypevisor.. even in core mode.. it's still sitting on a very heavy windows 2008 OS. it has none of the enterprise features of ESX. and the performance doesn't even come close. hyper-V is good for the small businesses that want to "play" with virtualization. but any real business would need a more powerful system.
  • zombiecarlin, on 08/08/2008, -0/+12VMWare is a great company, love their product, love their pricing, love their innovation, what's not to love?
    • nandasunu, on 08/08/2008, -2/+11not open source? you asked....
      • mrsteveman1, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3They built their business around developing the software itself, at a time when everyone else involved was much farther behind. That probably took quite a bit of money and time on their part.

        And now you want them to Open Source (capitalized), and perhaps even GPL (or worse, BSD) license the software? Why would they do that? So they can kneecap themselves into selling support instead, when they are quite clearly the leader in the market because of the SOFTWARE itself?

        If a competitor can take that software, legally, and compete with VMware on the same level, whats left for them?

        They could release the source for all their stuff without actually making it Free Software, but people would blast them for that, too i assure you.
      • cutchyacokov, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2True, but I would prefer to compile vmware from source if I had the chance. He didn't say it was fair to discredit them for this downside; only that it is, in fact, a downside. To recap, its not that I don't love vmware but I would love it more if it were open source.
    • paradexes, on 08/08/2008, -1/+3They do have some open source code. You may want to peruse vmware.com some before making a blanket statement like that.
    • Elranzer, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2VMware Workstation needs to be free. VMware Server already is free, and as far as I know, WS doesn't have any features that the current Server edition doesn't.
      • bipolarruledout, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2It does but they are pretty close. Let them make some money. Vmware's technology is damn near first rate as they have been refining their platform for over 10 years. People who need workstation for production development are more than willing to pay for it and it's still a great deal for the asking price.
  • kthoma22, on 08/08/2008, -0/+4so does that means EMC joins it to since EMC owns VMWARE?
  • Cyrock, on 08/08/2008, -1/+11With all of Adobe's ported software to linux I can't believe I never knew they were in the Linux Foundation...

    /sarcasm
    • bipolarruledout, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2Took the words right out of my keyboard. They should probobally start with some native x86 OS X apps before they get too big into this whole "linux thing".
  • NateTheApe21, on 08/08/2008, -1/+5VMware VS Microsoft GO!
  • santasing, on 08/08/2008, -0/+4Just pointing out that VMWare fired it CEO recently and the new guy is someone from Microsoft. I don't think it will be as simple at VMWare vs. MS. On the contrary, I would not be surprised if this move was actually bad for OSS.

    http://boycottnovell.com/2008/07/09/emc-gave-vmwar ...

    I don't know how much of this is true and how much speculation, but it is certainly interesting.
    • paradexes, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2Considering how Paul Maritz was removed from Microsoft, my guess is that he certainly does not have that much love for them. I don't see a conspiracy here for MS to buy out VMware or something of the sort.
    • santasing, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1No, I wasn't talking of any conspiracies. Just pointing out something I read.

      And considering how unceremoniously Diane Greene was let go, who knows what VMWare is doing. Personally, I don't use VMWare.
  • arigneysd, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2VMware ESX is by far the superior virtualization product. all other competitors are just trying to keep up. with the announcement that ESX is free for stand alone servers shows that they are willing to play hardball with Xen and Hyper-V. the standalone non-enterprise version of ESX is the same level of product as hyper-v and xen (Entry level virtualization)
    • spectre_25gt, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2Agreed. I run Xen at home and it works fine for me there, but there's really no comparison between the two. The ease of management and well structured environment of VI is worth every penny.
    • bipolarruledout, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1This whole virtualization trend really seems like a race to the bottom for all the companies involved. I think it's really great for customers but it's not like it's very hard to switch virtualization platforms. I remember when Vmware was it and now it seems like everyone is making something. Why? It just doesn't seem like the market is big enough to have so many players and there really aren't the lock ins of traditional platforms.
  • BobTheTaco, on 08/08/2008, -0/+4But will that make them able to add directx 9.0c functionality?
    • bipolarruledout, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2I would like to see this but possible "political" issues with Microsoft could be standing in the way. This requires a WDDM driver which may need to be signed by Microsoft. Keep in mind that there is not a lot of demand for this in Vmware but they are closer than even Microsoft in adapting their virtualization platform for new display technology.
  • j.carcinogen, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1I noticed VMware player in the openSUSE repositories a few days ago.
  • sk11, on 08/08/2008, -0/+7The fellowship of the penguin.
  • JohnLawson, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1It's really not that surprising... It's in their best interest to join the Linux foundation. Seriously, Why get virtualisation software if you only need to run windows.
    Good digg though.
    • mrBitch, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1You obviously have no experience on the server side of things. Microsoft can see the advantages of running their Windows Servers within virtualised instances - and this is why MS tried to buy VMware ( they got rejected, and bought Virtual PC instead).
      • JohnLawson, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1obviously, i don't.... considering all the major companies run windows, not Linux(massive sarcasm). Excluding Sun, Google, Yahoo, Blizzard, etc etc. Seriously dude.
      • mrBitch, on 08/10/2008, -0/+1RE: "all the major companies run windows, not Linux(massive sarcasm). Excluding Sun, Google, Yahoo, Blizzard, etc etc. Seriously dude. "

        I don't understand what you are trying to say. I know that most of the really large companies do NOT run Windows Servers.

        I was just trying to say why Microsoft would ALSO be interested in running virtualised servers.
  • LinuxCobra, on 08/08/2008, -0/+0... and it shall remain supreme!
  • Rocketmac, on 08/08/2008, -0/+5"VMware VS Microsoft GO!"

    1. Support (+1 VMware)
    2. Migrate VMs without halting IO (+2 VMware - Storage vMotion and vMotion)
    3. More mature product (+1 VMware)
    4. 8 virtual CPUs per physical core instead of 1:1 (+1 VMware)
    5. Large, bloated name behind the product (+1 Hyper-V).
    • ohplease, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1

      None of this matters. If you want to have a proper escalation chain for OS issues and you run Windows within your VMs then the Microsoft Hypervisor is the only way to go.

      If you call MS saying you're having problems within a VM hosted on VMWare they can tell you to go recreate it on HCL listed physical hardware and call back. Not something you want to do during a critical outage.

      • bipolarruledout, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2Not anymore. Microsoft to their credit has been passively supporting virtualized guests since around 2005. They have always supported GSX/ESX instances on premier support contracts.
      • Rocketmac, on 08/09/2008, -0/+2I've actually had better luck with Windows support from VMware Support Staff then I have getting through to Microsoft.
  • DeuceDiggalow, on 08/09/2008, -1/+1Hello, Adobe doesn't even make a working flash plugin for linux, geez. I hope I can even post this comment without firefox closing.
  • unitedatheism, on 08/09/2008, -1/+1This comment was made on Kubuntu, 64-bit. My other tab is a homestarrunner.com's cartoon, do I need to say more?
    Oh yeah, Firefox 3.
  • truck87bp, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1Its really nice to finally see software improving by leaps and bounds. I guess that this is what happens when when you turn your back on close systems. Thanks Linux world people for your work.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.