Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business Operating Systems Software Windows

Will Munich's Linux Desktops Be Running Windows? 581

Posted by timothy from the fingernails-on-the-well dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Remember that story about the city of Munich choosing Linux to power 14,000 desktop computers? One aspect of this story that most people don't know about is that up to 80 percent of those Linux desktops will be equipped with VMWare, a virtual machine emulator, under which they will run Windows and Windows applications. That's right, folks: The majority of those 'Linux desktops' will be used to run ... Windows." This Gartner report from early June seems to be the one mentioned in the article, though I'm not sure exactly where Thurrott gets the 80% figure.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Will Munich's Linux Desktops Be Running Windows? More

Will Munich's Linux Desktops Be Running Windows?

Comments Filter:

  • temporary measure ? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sad Loser ( 625938 ) * on Sunday July 20, 2003 @08:19PM (#6487673)

    interesting if it's true, although the article does specify a redmond source.

    vmware is a great product for developing using a virtual network, and I'm sure they must have done their sums (they are Germans, after all)

    My guess is that they must have a lot of legacy apps that they can't afford to update now, and that in the future they will use linux clients, but that they can start moving everyone to linux now to make the later switch easy.

    • More Gartner crap? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jimmyharris ( 605111 ) on Monday July 21, 2003 @12:14AM (#6488658) Homepage
      If you read the Gartner report you will see that it doesn't refer to any sources at all.

      At one point it says "Munich hasn't yet disclosed the business case behind its decision." and at another "The business case assumes that many applications will not migrate to Linux".

      Note that the source of the business case is carefully omitted and it doesn't refer to Munich's business case as that hasn't been released. I read it at referring to Gartner's own ASSUMED business case.

      The article is just another imaginary pro-MS Gartner report. Move along folks...
      • 1. Gartner does not refer any sources at all. In addition they don't even mention the number of 80 percent. 2. anonymous reader mentions the number of "up to 80 percent". 3. The non-public case study says:

        "Bei der Ermittlung des Mengengersts fuer die Lizenzkosten VMWare wird fuer;r die WiBE21 davon ausgegangen, dass fuer ca. 80 % aller PC-Clients (14.183), d.h. fr 11.364 PC-Clints [sic!] je eine VMWare-Lizenz beschafft werden muss." Quelle: Projekt Client Studie der Landeshauptstadt Muenchen: Entscheidung

  • Licensing? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by chrispatch ( 578882 ) * on Sunday July 20, 2003 @08:20PM (#6487682)
    Would you not have to pay for a SUSE linux and windows license to run windows in vmware? Maybe they are going to run their OLD versions of windows?

    • Licensing AOK. Paul Thurrott is smoking crack. (Score:5, Troll)

      by twitter ( 104583 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @10:57PM (#6488361) Homepage Journal
      Munich has some 127 custom applications that work under windoze. I assume they have licensing that's better than M$ for those. I also asume that this is why they need VMware and what not. Here's what the silly Gatner report said about it:

      The business case assumes that many applications will not migrate to Linux; instead, the bulk of applications requiring Windows will probably be Web-enabled and accessed through a browser. Munich will accommodate any remaining applications using virtual machine software, such as VMware.

      How Paul Thrrott of WinInfo jumps to the conclusion that the "Desktop" won't be GNU/Linux and that they are really running Windoze is beyond me. I imagine the browser will be from KDE or Mozilla and the desktop will be KDE and that all normal applications, email, word processing, simple spreadsheets will be free and open software. That Munich can also run crappy old windoze stuff is a benifit that's not reciprocated on Microsoft's limited little GUI. Yet Paul would imply that this ablity indicates some kind of short comming in free software, hmph.

      WinInfo looks like it was written by a crack smoking Microsoft Public Relations firm. Other nonsense on the same page include dreams of a surge of interest in Windoze as a web serving platform prompted by Bill Gates changing servers for his personal site, a rosy assesment of the M$ empire after failing to meet market expectations, and a piece playing down yet another major security flaw in windoze. There's neither logic nor dignity on that page. I've seen circus posters that made more sense and promoted more reputable things. Hell, I've seen more profesional things on Burbon Street. What does our Anonymous Reader do all day that he might stumble across drivel like that?

  • What we need... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 20, 2003 @08:23PM (#6487701)
    ...is to buy out vmware like we did with blender. Then, we can hopefully get OEMs to start including windows UNDER Linux for increased features and stability. In addition, when Windows crashes, more options can be granted. If we can get Linux as the base for Windows, then people may start developing programs directly for Linux that bypass Windows altogether.

    • Re:What we need... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by acceleriter ( 231439 )
      If we can get Linux as the base for Windows, then people may start developing programs directly for Linux that bypass Windows altogether.

      That approach was tried by IBM with OS/2. Unfortunately, since OS/2 did such a nice job of running Windows apps, developers like WordPerfect Corp. (don't laugh, they were a force back then) abandoned their OS/2 ports. Why? Because the OS/2 users could just use the Windows version of the product!

  • Could be a wise move. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Sunday July 20, 2003 @08:23PM (#6487702) Homepage Journal

    Running VMWare under Linux, not under Windows, could provide a needed security blanket for those people that aren't used to sudden change. If they weren't serious about the move they wouldn't be doing this transitional thing; remember that these are mainly office paper pushers, not computer geeks.

  • Is this credible? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gotr00t ( 563828 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @08:25PM (#6487719) Journal
    Sure, I can understand that they would still have problems with compatibility to the vast collection of Windows software out there, but the Gartner report never really stated a number. It seems that this person just made up a number, cited only a single souce (Gartner) and makes no references at all.

    Sure, I also think that Linux is perhaps not ready yet for GENERAL desktop use and replacement for Windows for all, but this article is a lot like Yellow Journalism, where the facts are more BS, fluff, and stretched fact than anything else.

    They're also forgetting a major thing. If they were to use SO many computers with Windows anyway, WHY DIDN'T THEY JUST TAKE THE MICROSOFT DEAL? Instead of blowing several million euros on SuSE's Linux and IBM's machines?

    In all, this article makes little or no sense, cites only one reference, gives no source for the statistic, and stretches many facts in the sole reference, to the point where it makes little/no sense. The very fact that this crap could be MENTIONED on Slashdot really makes me question the integrity of this news source.

    • they want to be in *control* of their computing environment.

      When this is done, they will be able to take advantage of any Linux or Unix based application easily. Why? Because their desktops are open ones, not closed.

      No amount of money spent on the Microsoft deal will allow them the level of choice they have now.

      That is going to be worth something more than the few million extra euros they spent today.

      • Re:They did not take the microsoft deal because (Score:4, Insightful)

        by __past__ ( 542467 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @10:21PM (#6488227)
        Let's see: Instead of desktops running a closed OS they now run a closed OS in a closed virtualization environment on a free OS. Yep. Way more control. I bet every admin will be amazed about that setup.
        • They can take those licenses running on VM's and continue to use them for as long as they want to regardless of hardware issues.

          They can limit the interactive nature of those images as well. Strip them until they only perform the tasks required. No browser, etc...

          Admin can be easy if they want. They can deploy the images on a central server or on each machine.

          I think the admins will be amazed. Once things are working the way they can, the setup will have clear advantages. If a user hoses things up, copy standard image, restart VM, done! --This is easy now and will remain so even as the rest of the environment changes.

          Because they removed the win32 apps and software from the hardware environment, they can and will be able to run what they have now for as long as they want.

    • Re:Is this credible? (Score:3, Informative)

      by bmajik ( 96670 )
      my take:

      many european governments are VERY paranoid (perhaps righyfully so) about being dependant on software that is seen as "US based" -- especially Microsoft.

      Munich symbolically (and financially) supports a local software company (SuSE) and also symbolically thumbs its nose at Microsoft, whom it is grudingly dependant on for the time being.

      I beleive the article is basically credible. Later threads go into more detail.

      I'm surprised this article made it to slashdot as well, but for different reasons.

  • Sensible move (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dyj ( 590807 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @08:26PM (#6487725)
    By switching to Linux for operating system, Munich avoids depending on Microsoft for technical support and product upgrades. While using VMWare allows continuous usage of existing programs and possible future migration to Linux. This decision allows CHOICE and FLEXIBILITY, which are what I believe Munich wants in the first place.

  • VMware as a stepping stone (Score:5, Interesting)

    by derrith ( 600195 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @08:27PM (#6487727)
    My Computer repair class last year switched to linux my behest and because my instructor wanted to anyways. we setup VMWare and a win2k install on all of our machines as a stepping stone, throughout the year, people stopped using windows as much, as they had to start IT up from inside linux and that was "too much of a hassle" to lazy high school kids. However, they did start using linux more and more, and ultimately the b3ecame more proficient. So I believe Munich is using these VMware installs to allow their workers to be able to go back to a familiar enviroment while they learn the new one and how it functions
    • So I believe Munich is using these VMware installs to allow their workers to be able to go back to a familiar enviroment while they learn the new one and how it functions

      I think it's more likely they're using VMware to provide access to legacy apps that can't be easily replaced or ported. The desktop will most certainly be KDE/GNOME with OpenOffice. It's unlikely that VMware will launch into fullscreen mode and hog the desktop immediately after logging in.

  • article makes my head hurt (Score:5, Funny)

    by bersl2 ( 689221 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @08:30PM (#6487749) Journal
    Must... not... give in... to... M$ propaganda...

    ...owwww...

    [gurgle]

    /me is dead.

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @08:31PM (#6487755)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Migration... this is the definition of Migration (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geogeek6_7 ( 566395 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @08:31PM (#6487756) Homepage
    Good grief. A little common sense would dictate that even if they are using VMWare, its not something to generate a whole lot of hulaballoo about. Everyone needs a transition period.

    Munich has over 100 Windows-only custom apps! They can't be expected just to switch to Linux and loose those overnight.

    Even *I* dual-booted Windows next to Linux for 2 years, and I'm a geek. Its to be expected, and isn't "Betrayal" or a "Loss" to Linux... it is the necessary progression.

  • So? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by helmutjd ( 568988 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @08:33PM (#6487769)
    I think it really depends on what they're doing with the Windows VM's. If they're booting up their Linux boxes, firing up VMware and spending the duration of the day in Windows, then yeah, that's pointless.

    But if they're only using Windows/MSOffice under VMware to aid in the transition to non-MS software, and using Linux everything else, this could be a huge opportunity to introduce Linux on a large scale without pissing people off with OpenOffice incompatibilities, etc... IMO, this is a good thing.

  • Gets the social inertia going the right direction. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by djh101010 ( 656795 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @08:34PM (#6487776) Homepage Journal
    While in an ideal world, the entire setup would instantly switch to a purely linux solution, the real world doesn't work that way. You'll always have people who are more comfortable with certain apps, and you'll have applications that just plain aren't available for Linux just yet.

    By running the workstation on Linux, and by locking Windows into it's own little virtual machine jail, this accomplishes several important things:
    1. Gets Linux on the desktop
    2. Handles any/all remote display sessions, eliminating cost of a windows X-desktop solution.
    3. Handles remote NFS mounts to *nix servers, eliminating *that* cost.
    4. Allows users to continue with most of their work when the Windows VM bluescreens - reboot the VM and keep going.

    As long as 3 years ago, a Linux desktop with VMWare running Windows was a viable solution from a cost perspective, and with the reliability and other improvements in VMWare, it's an excellent solution in a hybrid environment.

    While many of us would prefer to be in a Pure Open Environment, the reality of the world is that this doesn't exist in many places just yet. Moves such as this will go a long way torwards getting us there, and in the meantime, there are a bunch of desktops which will be far more stable and usable than if they were running only Windows. I've been running this way for around 3 years now, and it's a perfectly viable solution. It gets Linux the exposure it needs, and the quality of the product will do the rest.

  • Source of 80% figure (Score:5, Informative)

    by DeepRedux ( 601768 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @08:39PM (#6487797)
    The article asks the source of the 80% figure. The original report is here (in German) [muenchen.de]. On page 34, footnote 1, there is the assumption that 80% will be using VMWare for 4 to 5 years.

  • Fuzzy math (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lkaos ( 187507 ) <anthony AT codemonkey DOT ws> on Sunday July 20, 2003 @08:42PM (#6487803) Homepage Journal
    Did anyone think that the vmware may be used to access the Windows that was previously installed on these machines?

    And I thought the bulk of these machines were embedded devices like cop cars, etc.

    This seems a bit fuzzy...

  • sometimes you have to (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Pompatus ( 642396 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @08:49PM (#6487850) Journal
    I have linux installed on my laptop with vmware running windows to have word. I generally write papers with my laptop. I would LOVE to get rid of windows but I need word because my school has it in the computer labs. I need to be able to print papers out at school, and most times I don't have time to fix the formatting and other misc descrepances I get from converting to .doc format.

    I might be missing a solution to my problem, though, because I'm still learning how linux works (I did recompile the kernal and get wireless networking functional, and I'm proud of it dammit!)
    • Here are some other possibilities you may or may not have thought of:
      • Save as RTF (but your docs are probably too complex for this)
      • Save in Word Perfect format (may still be conversion erros; I don't know)
      • Convert to PDF using Ghostscript
      • print to file (PCL, Postscript, or whatever is appropriate for the printer) and ftp it, netcat it or copy /b it (for LPT1: printers) to the printer

      You apparently already have a method to transfer your data file to the school computers, so all of the above are adaptable to

  • This isn't bad news (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CliffH ( 64518 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [notsriah.ffilc]> on Sunday July 20, 2003 @08:55PM (#6487880) Homepage Journal
    Look,
    Bad news would be a total reversal and going with a full MS solution. This is an intelligent, well thought out migration. As nice as it would be to have all Linux based apps at the changeover, it's just not going to happen. As nice as it would be for all systems to be rolled out with Linux and everyone be perfectly happy with their systems and no retraining required, it's not going to happen. This is an excellent migration strategy. Start porting your critical apps over to Linux over a period of time (months/years), keep your existing legacy apps running on Windows in a sandbox (ie. VMWare) so that the typical crashes don't bring down the whole system (just restart the virtual machine), and, best of all, keep everyone happy and content. This shows that IT was thinking of the users throughout the migration and have their best interests at heart.

    To everyone blasting this as a betrayal or a PR stunt, work in the real world and do this for a living. Wholesale switches from one platform to another is not an easy thing from the IT side of things or (especially) the user side of things. This is warranted, justified, and just plain right.

    These guys don't need yelling and screaming, they need a pat on the back for thinking this through thoroughly enough to see that not all apps can be migrated over yet and people still need to work, otherwise, they could have 14,000 new bright and shiny systems with only a handful of people actively doing their jobs while all of the others sit and twiddle their thumbs for most of the day (besides to send emails, type up some documents, and surf).

    I love linux (as I state all of the time), but a migration of that size (or any size) has to be thought through from the perspective of not only IT and monetary considerations, but from the user standpoint as well.

    CliffH

  • what's the problem? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by martin-boundary ( 547041 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @09:13PM (#6487962)
    Linux/VMWare can obviously run Windows better than Windows can. Since VMWare forces a standard hardware platform (by software emulation), there won't be problems with buggy drivers or random crashes due to hardware idiosyncrasies => less blue screening.

    Moreover, if the admins mirror the VMWare disk image periodically, it's trivial to roll back any damage to the Windows installation that a user will inevitably introduce. Comet cursor and Bonzi buddy? Just roll back the disk image.

    On the other hand, the latest pirated, 3d accelerated Windows games won't run well in VMWare, so users won't be tempted to install those. Again, that's great news for sysadmins.

    Overall, Linux is just a great way of increasing the productivity of Windows users.

  • Makes perfect sense to me... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by darnok ( 650458 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @09:25PM (#6488018)
    They'll have lots of legacy Windows apps that will need to be progressively ported to Linux, so it makes sense to do this in a planned, application-by-application manner rather than go for a 'big bang' approach.

    Furthermore, maybe only 50% of their users will need to run Windows/VMWare at any one time, so they may only need to buy half as many Windows licences as they have machines. Over time, this would decrease, as more and more apps get moved off Windows and onto Linux, and the number of users that need Windows decreases. And before anyone says "this is illegal", remember that we're talking about Germany, and they have much stronger laws restricting licence tying than they do in the US. I'm not an expert in German law, but this is quite likely to be "more legal" (if that term makes sense) in Germany than it would be in the US.

    • Re:Makes perfect sense to me... (Score:5, Informative)

      by nathanh ( 1214 ) on Monday July 21, 2003 @03:29AM (#6489086) Homepage
      Furthermore, maybe only 50% of their users will need to run Windows/VMWare at any one time, so they may only need to buy half as many Windows licences as they have machines.

      I daresay they won't need to buy any Windows licenses. Their existing Windows 98 licenses will work just fine. The usual reasons for buying new versions of Windows is for new hardware, support, patches, or integration with Active Directory. As Munich will be using Linux as the host operating system they can run older versions of Windows (in VM sessions) forever.

  • This is a good PRACTICAL solution (Score:3, Informative)

    by rump_carrot ( 644292 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @09:41PM (#6488079)
    This makes sense to me, as I am doing the same thing to finally migrate over to Linux full time.
    In fact, this approach has me using Linux MORE than when I tried to only use Linux apps.

    By having a Win4Lin desktop running Window 98 just one click away, I feel much less silly with my self-enforced migration to Linux.

    When I absolutely have to use Windows, it's there for me - no re-booting necessary. The majority of the time I can use the Web, etc. in Linux, and thus slowly, smoothly determine how much of my day to day tasks I can actually accomplish using open-source things like open office.

    In other words, having Windows there is making me use it less!

  • 12 Step program.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by MrCreosote ( 34188 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @09:43PM (#6488085)
    This is just the equivalent to 'checking into Betty Ford' for those users still addicted to MS Cocai^H^H^H^H^HOffice etc. No need to force them to go cold turkey.

    Once they are straight, they can go off the VMWare medication.

  • Bias (Score:4, Informative)

    by ralphclark ( 11346 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @09:47PM (#6488104) Journal
    Check the history. If you Google for Gartner and OSS/Linux etc., you will see that Gartner's reports are ALWAYS pro-Microsoft even when their supporting arguments are very weak indeed. So no surprise there.

    By comparison, Bloor Research reports are usually positive about Linux and Open Source in general.

  • Advantage of using VMWare (Score:5, Funny)

    by Escalus ( 651270 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @09:55PM (#6488129)
    I think you guys missed the obvious advantage of using VMWare to run Windows - you can reboot Windows faster in the case of the a BSOD :)

  • Windows Sandbox (Score:4, Interesting)

    by IGnatius T Foobar ( 4328 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @10:17PM (#6488210) Homepage Journal
    One interesting support model I'm seeing someone do right now is to have every single desktop running Linux and a Linux version of VMware, regardless of the "actual" client operating system. Boot the box, VMware starts, then without any manual intervention the client OS (usually 'doze 2000) starts up and goes full screen.

    Sounds silly? When there's a problem, or a need to upgrade, or whatever ... the entire image can be pulled back remotely, then fixed/upgraded/replaced, and shoved back down to the actual physical location. Sweet!

    The long-term answer to tech support problems is to migrate towards true thin-client or lean-client computing, making the actual desktop device irrelevant. But this is a nice stopgap.

  • Won't VMware running Windows be horribly slow (Score:4, Informative)

    by technofeab ( 651094 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @10:34PM (#6488287)
    I Run FreeBSD 5.1 (as a guest OS) under VMware. XP is my native OS. I was trying to find a good alternative to dual-booting. Unfortunately, I find that my system is terribly slow (1.5 Ghz with 256 RAM). Even on a 2 Ghz with 512 RAM, there is a considerable lag. Both the native OS and the guest OS putz along as they compete for memory and whatever else.

    I suspect that the actual users will become highly motivated to run VMware as little as possible and will soon learn to love linux (as they should).

  • Question really is, can Gartner be trusted? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 20, 2003 @10:37PM (#6488297)


    Ok, in reading most of the 3+ comments here, it looks like most slashdot readers here, at least the ones with a bit of foss experience, know that having vmware on a fat client migration from windows to gnu/linux in a business setting is a requirement, and there is no such thing as immersion or shock implementations of FOSS in a large business or government, unless you are trying to guarantee failure.

    What everyone should be questioning, however, is why doesn't Gartner know this? Or do they?

    If you have been following the juggernaut of gnu/linux, you are aware that gartner is slanting every report they can in favor of microsoft. Quite simply, microsoft pays many of their studies. What would happen to gartner funding if they started coming out with stories that said that it is cost effective to switch to gnu/linux?

    Do you think that microsoft would continue throwing the same amount of money gartner's way? Especially when execs and government workers, the majority of which don't know their asshole from a donut hole, rely on gartner's reports for purchasing and implementation decisions?

    microsoft has billions to grease the wheels. Should gartner piss off microsoft?

    microsoft was so desperate to not lose the munich deal that butterball ballmer cut short his ski trip to try and salvage the deal. And when they tried once again at the last second to underbid the foss deal (which they were already underbid), one of the munich officials considered it "insulting".

    So now, microsoft has to do everything it can to spin this loss as best as possible. Claiming that vmware/windows will run on 80% of the desktops smacks of tactics used in the OS/2 wars, similar to the current tactics of hitting Newsforge and Slashdot boards with "Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet". That's right. That phrase keeps popping up. When you see that phrase, review what went on during the OS/2 wars. If you are too young to remember, google the phrase.

    microsoft will be spinning the munich loss for many years to come. This 80% figure, on munich desktops, is exactly this: spin. It won't even be implemented by 1Q04, and we already have spin that says that in munich, an IBM/Suse/linux win, microsoft loss, 80% of the desktops will be windows desktops because they have vmware installed.

    What can Gartner do to make their reports more balanced? How about counting down time/reboots in their tco studies? Or counting how many servers a windows admin normally maintains, against how many servers a unix/linux admin maintains, in their tco studies? Or counting actual number of patches of actual number of installed and running services in comparable systems, instead of counting every patch of every application included in the major distros, even though microsoft has no functional equivalents, or is not running them on a particular installation. Does gartner include patches for microsoft office when comparing file servers? So why throw in patches for applications for gnu/linux distros that would never be included on a file server, as part of the total count?

    In short, do you believe that gartner will do this? Have they done this in the past? Have you taken a look at their study that found that gnu/linux was cheaper only for web servers, and microsoft applications were cheaper for everything else on a tco basis? Have you taken a look at the criticism of this study? It's been covered here on slashdot previously.

    The gartner tco study counted linux/unix implementations as costing more partially because linux/unix admins command a higher wage/salary. And higher technical skills. But they assumed that windows and linux/unix admins also administered the same number of servers. Anyone with extensive experience on both sides of the fence believe this?

    What about hardware? No where in the gartner study did it mention or take into account that hardware requirements for gnu/linux is less than windows. No where.

    Also, conveniently, the leng

  • user guide to these comments (Score:3, Funny)

    by UnixRevolution ( 597440 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @10:43PM (#6488314) Homepage Journal
    Comments on this article will fall into 4 categories: 1. "They have some legacy apps that they will migrate from Windows to UNIX slowly, maintain stability and control" 2. "They betrayed us and are a bunch of publicity-hungry Redmondites!!" 3. "Well, obviously, Linux sucks so of course they're using Windows on top of it" 4. "All your base are belong to us"

  • NSA does this. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @11:11PM (#6488431) Journal
    NSA supposedly no longer exposes Windows directly to the net. It is run on top of Linux using vmware. So, if good enough for the NSA, then it is good enough for me (assuming that we both have the same versions with all the same patches ).

  • Understand the following: (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NeuroManson ( 214835 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @11:53PM (#6488600) Homepage
    (1) As VMWare is used, it allows the users to have a maximum amount of compatability.

    (2) As VMWare is being used under Linux to run Windows, Microsoft has no cause to complain.

    (3) As for speed; The majority of the applications I assume are being used, don't require the mammoth memory and CPU overhead (I doubt the government is going to be playing Q3 deathmatch on their systems, or watching a huge amount of pr0n) that the average 'Doze or 'Nuxers need for their computing "experience". If you aren't using it for those, it probably will be quite snappy, because math oriented apps don't need nor care about DirectX, OpenGL, et al.

  • Really? :-) (Score:5, Interesting)

    by toolz ( 2119 ) on Monday July 21, 2003 @01:07AM (#6488799) Homepage Journal
    Just for once, I am glad to see the Windows bigots being more prominent with their propaganda than the Linux bigots. ;-)

    Here are a few facts for everyone to chew on:
    • The VMware installs are to run legacy windows applications during the period of transition.

    • MS doesn't make any money of licenses here - the machines are currently running Windows 3.1/95/98, and the same licenses are being reused on those machines.

    • The VMware environment will almost certainly not be used to run MS Office - Germany has been a heavy user of starOffice (and now OpenOffice) for a loong time - unlike in the rest of the world (read that as "U-S-A"), MS Office is not the leading office package in Germany.

    • I can almost guarantee that 6-12 months down the line, people will have reduced their dependence on VMware by a substantial percentage, as they actually start using Linux/OSS apps.

    • In the *meanwhile*, those 100+ Windows-only apps are (already) being ported to OS-agnostic Internet/Intranet web-based environments.

    Let me also point out that this isn't some little "ThirdWorld" (tm, USA) country with no economics or tech savvy we are talking about - this is Germany - probably the economically most powerful nation along with USA, and the driving force behind Europe. These guys have what it takes to do an evaluation of this sort, and come out tops.

    And they have proved that *again* with their decision to switch to Linux while also giving their users the psychological crutch that they will be able to use their existing windows applications. In one fell swoop, they have swept all objections off the table, and have set up a scenario where people will now actually begin using Linux/OSS apps, rather than just reading about them.

    And as we all know, that is the *one* single obstacle that Linux/OSS has been facing in the past - getting people to actually try it.

    Go, Germany! Show the world how it is done!

  • Strategy Enabler (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kanenas ( 172422 ) on Monday July 21, 2003 @03:11AM (#6489054)
    I've been researching about Open Source.
    Munich choose Open Source because O.S is a "strategy enabler". Cost came second.
    Think it for a second. If something gives you flexibility and more choises for you strategy ultimately means that it provides you with more axis of freedom in your strategy. You can maneuver better in the long run.
    I predict that this property of O.S will be more importand than cost in the future.

    kanenas

  • Linux + VMWare: goodness 7 ways from Sunday (Score:5, Insightful)

    by KMSelf ( 361 ) <karsten@linuxmafia.com> on Monday July 21, 2003 @04:01AM (#6489128) Homepage

    GNU/Linux desktops with VMWare for virtualized access to other systems -- be they legacy MS Windows, GNU/Linux, or other, makes tons of sense.

    First, you've kicked the monkey off your back, er, desktop. The principle system is Linux, and the end-user application space is more than adequate for general business computing. Depending on the services SuSE and IBM can offer, the flexibility and management of this solution will be worlds above what a Microsoft environment could offer. And running VMWare on GNU/Linux to serve legacy MS Windows makes far more sense than hosting it the other way around given the stability, configurability, and performance of GNU/Linux.

    Second, VMWare is a great product -- words I'm not prone to utter about proprietary software in general. The high-performance general system virtualization niche is one that VMWare has fully locked up. I've used the product since first public betas in 1999, and none of the other alternatives I've tried -- Bochs, Plex86, UML, WINE, or dosemu -- hold a candle to it for ease of configuration, versatility, stability, or performance.

    Third, VMWare provides an awesome way to manage a large number of desktops. Within the virtual machine, the hardware configuration is identical for all systems. The only differences are processor speed, memory, and availability of specific peripherals which don't exist on the host system. However, all devices -- disks, network cards, sound, monitor, etc. -- are the same for any VMWare virtual machine. Any system-specific drivers and related configuration is a non-issue.

    Fourth, VMWare allows access to multiple configurations, which may be accessed simultaneously. In part this is a box Microsoft has launched itself into with gusto. A trivial example is browsers: one side-effect of the tying, er, integration of MSIE with the legacy MS Windows product is that it's not possible to run multiple variants of an MSIE browser since version 6.mumble. With VMWare, it's possible to run different configurations of, say, Win2K and MSIE. It's also possible to run different legacy MS Windows OSs entirely: Win3.1, 95, NT, 2K, XP, and their variants. Simultaneously (a respectable system should be able to support 3-4 concurrent virtual machines if necessary). Support desks worldwide already find this invaluable. It's likely that Munich's aquired a motley mix of applications which run in a number of specific environments -- VMWare is likely one of the best ways to make these conveniently available to workers.

    Fifth, the virtual system images themselves are nothing more than file snapshots. These can be stored and served centrally (again reducing maintenance issues), and eliminating again the overhead of creating and installing thousands of systems -- rather, a few standard file images are served centrally. User-specific files can be served over the network from your GNU/Linux Samba server.

    Sixth, VMWare's rollback and checkpointing means that for a given image, it's possible to run a system either with no commits (all changes to the running VMWare image are lost on exit, great for highly specific tasked workstations), or can be committed or discarded as an option, on system exit (useful for development). In either case. backing up the image file prior to use allows for recovery later.

    Seventh, once you've kicked that Redmond jones, "deinstalling" the now-worthless virtual system is a snap.

    I'd say Munich's going to have an excellent, flexible, configurable, stable, and useful system.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry

Close