Virtualization, 20yrs late. Was: "Death of a firewall" and Xen
bsder at allcaps.org
Mon Jul 11 09:13:27 PDT 2005
Tracy R Reed wrote:
> Yeah, yeah. The rant of the curmudgeon. I am quite familiar with it. :)
> Were they doing it for $300 a box and giving you the source? I don't
> think so. And that is a very different thing which make FOSS "innovative".
No, but unlike FOSS, it is tested for backward compatibility for 30+
Personally, I'd take an actual unit tested OS over more features at this
> Yes, it certainly would. Unfortunately the mainframe world has never
> been all that good about cooperating or sharing knowledge. The Unix
> world is having to reinvent the wheel and the Free software world is
> having to invent it again. In spite of all of this, progress is being
> made and we can now have virtualization on our $300 PC's.
Ahem. The pee-cee world has never been particularly good at adhereing
to a standard. In addition, the x86 architecture has been absolute
garbage for having the extensions required to support some of this stuff
until the last couple of years.
For the love of Deity, I *still* can't do remote access and control of a
$300 pee-cee. IPMI compliant stuff is starting to appear, but it's just
*starting* and its expensive.
It isn't the fact that mainframes hoarded their knowledge (I can point
you to *lots* of IBM Journal of R&D articles on how to do
virtualization). It's simply that none of the FOSS folks cared until
Personally, I *still* don't care. Rather than virtual x86's, I would
rather have a "virtual processor" so I don't have to care about x86,
PowerPC, Alpha, etc. I'm tired of "processor specific". Given that
people don't actually care about overall performance in 90+% of all
applications, it's time we dumped that whole issue in the trash.
More information about the KPLUG-List