Isn't the Virtual Bridges technologies entirely proprietary? Both client and server side software which you have to run to make this work? Sure the service runs on linux and solaris servers, and the clients run on windows/mac/linux...but the virtualization layer is all proprietary still isn't it? Isn't even the API between the server and client even proprietary still?
I find it ironic that a Canonical exec is quoted in the announcement talking about using open standards to break proprietary lock-in, when the network enabled virtualization technology behind VERDE is itself completely proprietary. That's nice. Real nice.
Is this the sort of desktop-oriented web services that Shuttleworth has been talking about when he's spoken of 'webplications' in the past? Proprietary technologies that locks the linux desktop into a proprietary on-demand service? In any event, I hope Canonical is getting a cut of the per user fees that Virtual Bridges is charging for this. Though there is no obvious reason to assume Canonical is...unless the licensing fees include some sort of support contract agreement with Canonical...which isn't mentioned. Is this an actual revenue vector for Canonical into small business or is all the per-user money staying with Virtual Bridges and IBM?
Just one last question, did Canonical have to patch components in Ubuntu specifically so Virtual Bridges tech could serve Ubuntu? I think its important to know if Canonical is spending manhours patching in support for proprietary services instead of using those same manhours to grow open technologies.