| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Which is Better: A Partitioned OS or a Partitioned Machine? (IT-Director)Which is Better: A Partitioned OS or a Partitioned Machine? (IT-Director)Posted Feb 9, 2006 4:05 UTC (Thu) by wildpossum (guest, #17744)In reply to: Which is Better: A Partitioned OS or a Partitioned Machine? (IT-Director) by sbergman27 Parent article: Which is Better: A Partitioned OS or a Partitioned Machine? (IT-Director)
But Vmware just made the desktop product free as in beer, so presumably they are pitting their enterprise product against Xen. So the question still is "if your SERVER is running flat out" with multiple instances of Linux on Xen why would you want to add Windows to the mix?
(Log in to post comments)
Which is Better: A Partitioned OS or a Partitioned Machine? (IT-Director) Posted Feb 9, 2006 21:07 UTC (Thu) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] I'll let you know at such time that I have servers that are running flat out.
I don't have servers that are running flat out. I have islands. Those islands being client sites, each with a Linux server and each with a mix of Linux and Windows desktops at best. At worst, everyone is running Windows apps and run a Windows terminal emulator to run my "foreign" Linux app.
I despise Windows. I don't even allow it in my home. But the ability to say, hey. I can run those apps with a Linux server and Linux clients is invaluable.
Openvz can't do that. Xen will be able to do it, on new high end processors, in the near future.
The arrogance of some Linux "advocates" takes me aback.
The article basically says that the ability to virtualize multiple OSes is a benefit. I agree.
Unfortunately, a closed source app, VMWare, beat the OSS cummunity to the punch, and can do what OSS currently cannot.
|
|
||||||||||||