We do all our virtualization with Xen. It probably will never take over
the high-end role of VMWare and what M$ is trying to get a handle on,
and there's a lot of manual work/troubleshooting to be done on it while
trying to get answers from the open-source community. But I think it
does fit the description of 'free'. We started with VMWare but I could
see the way that ESX (2.0 at the time) was going (more restrictive on
'free' version) and it couldn't seem to tell time due to a serious lost
clock-tick flaw existing at the time. Turns out time-keeping is
important when trying to keep security tokens and tickets working. Xen
will probably continue to lag behind the other 2, but it too is making
On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 10:09 -0400, Ed Symanzik wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 12:54 +0000, Ehren Benson wrote:
> > Interesting Article I found today, thought it might lead to some fun
> > discussion ;)
> Mark and I don't seem to share the same definition of "free". I don't
> count free-with-the-purchase-of-Windows-Server as equivalent to free.
> Microsoft may eventually capture enough market share that VMware
> collapses, but Hyper-V will never be as nice a product. As soon as
> VMware is out of the way Microsoft will coast, and without someone to
> lead the way they will make the wrong choices.
> The product I'm keeping an eye on is RedHat. It already does much of
> what vSphere is capable of: live migration, high availability, etc.
> And, if you go with CentOS, it's really free, not just Microsoft-free.
> (skip forward a couple of sections)
> Ed Symanzik