06.27.08
Microsoft Virtualisation ‘Forgets’ Competition, Lumps the Novell Partner in
“Working behind the scenes to orchestrate “independent” praise of our technology, and damnation of the enemy’s, is a key evangelism function during the Slog. “Independent” analyst’s report should be issued, praising your technology and damning the competitors (or ignoring them). “Independent” consultants should write columns and articles, give conference presentations and moderate stacked panels, all on our behalf (and setting them up as experts in the new technology, available for just $200/hour). “Independent” academic sources should be cultivated and quoted (and research money granted). “Independent” courseware providers should start profiting from their early involvement in our technology. Every possible source of leverage should be sought and turned to our advantage.”
–Microsoft, internal document [PDF]
yper-V, Microsoft’s newly-announced hypervisor, is prominent in the press right now despite its market irrelevance and lack of presence. Think of it as a self-fulfilling prophecy, just as the quote at the top suggests (Yankee Group is already at it, accompanied by more lies). But Hyper-V not good for anyone. Microsoft intends to limit choice, not to offer any (contrary to claims that it’s good for VMWare to have more competition). The only company set to gain from it is Microsoft (plus its very small group of partners).
It is no secret anymore that Novell and Microsoft are self-serving virtualisation partners. Novell could not care any less if it helps Microsoft shut the door in the face of the rest of GNU/Linux; au contraire — it works to its advantage.
We were going to write about PlateSpin tomorrow (in a positive tone of course). It is currently boasting a new product that it has just released under Novell’s wing. One thing stood out for being suspicious though.
PlateSpin updates server workload migration tools
[...]
A key feature is the ability to move a workload from a physical server into a virtual machine or vice versa, with support for virtual machines running under Microsoft Virtual Server, Virtual Iron, VMware or Citrix XenServer.
For the uninitiated, what we always see where Microsoft gets involved is limited or no support for GNU/Linux. Only Microsoft-taxed distributions receive attention, so the impact on PlateSpin will be interesting. We wrote about it before and here is another fine new example where SLES gets inserted among the very narrow range of choices, as if it’s a surrogate of Microsoft Windows:
At that time, Microsoft said the list of tested and qualified guest operating systems include Windows Server 2003 SP2, Novell SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 10 SP1, Windows Vista SP1 and Windows XP SP3.
That’s it? Just Novell and Microsoft? Sun Microsystems sure seems to be complaining already.
3. Hyper-V only addresses Windows-based servers despite the fact that most datacenters are incredibly heterogeneous and require support for more than just Windows workloads. Aren’t you underestimating the complexity and diversity of your customers’ datacenters?
4. How do you see Hyper-V aiding in the reduction of energy consumption when it can only consolidate Windows-based servers?
It’s not too hard to get the overall picture. Microsoft is being anti-competitive again. It only offers support (compatibility) for product from which it extracts revenue; the rest it just ignores. █
Highlight: Novell was the first to acknowledge that Microsoft FUD tactics had substance. Novell then used anti-Linux FUD to market itself. 
Highlight: Xandros let Microsoft make patent claims and brag about (paid-for) OOXML support. 
Highlight: Linspire's CEO not only fell into Microsoft arms, but he also assisted the company's attack on GNU/Linux. 
Highlight: Microsoft craves pseudo (proprietary) standards and gets its way using proxies and influence which it buys. 
Highlight: The invasion into the open source world is intended to leave Linux companies neglected, due to financial incentives from Microsoft. 
Analysis: Xen, an open source hypervisor, possibly fell victim to Microsoft's aggressive (and stealthy) acquisition-by-proxy strategy.