Visit Your Local PBS Station PBS Home PBS Home Programs A-Z TV Schedules Watch Video Donate Shop PBS Search PBS
I, Cringely - The Survival of the Nerdiest with Robert X. Cringely
Search I,Cringely:

Predictions
BOB Predictions TRIBE Predictions
BOB Predictions
< Previous |     View All 2008
#19

Virtualization is determined to be virtually worthless

Status: [OPEN] comments (13) | add a comment
After 3-5 yrs vmware founders retire wth billions in the bank ROFL and give bill gates a dollar for betting that IT suckers would go for it knowng the only reason we need virtualization is bcoz windoze and lintux both suxors but intel still needs to sell processores.

Comments from the Tribe

Status: [OPEN] add a comment

You are missing the point. VM is a great idea even if you are only running one OS. The concept is that we get rid of BIOS and EFI. PON starts a VM. If the VM doesn’t start your computer goes to the shop. If VM starts you can run diagnostics which can tell you whether there a problem and what the problem is. VM running out of EEPROM gives a hacker proof substrate which can be used to VET the OS and file systems for malware. The current fly in the VM ointment is the graphics chip which is advancing too rapidly to be sufficiently standardized to allow universal VM drivers.

Charles Calthrop | Jan 31, 2008 | 2:45PM

Applications are supposed to be "virtualized" away from one another, and virtualized away from the hardware, as it is already. This is such old technology – I think virtualization of entire OS instances is a fad that will disappear once OSes can be more fully compartmentalized without performance penalties. [See Windows Internals, 4th Edition for an example of why Windows is not fully compartmentalized for performance reasons.] If you read Microsoft’s paper on their future OS architecture you will find that each app is hosted in the common language runtime, thus further abstracting them from the physical memory. Standardization of hardware accelerators will also help us achieve this goal as Cringely mentioned this week. But if the current state of VM extensions is any indication, that standardization is a long way off in the future.

Edward Dinovo | Jan 31, 2008 | 9:05PM

Software virtualization has been godsend for the environment that I support. We have over 3000 workstations (windows, mac, linux) and over 8000 applications. We always seem to have one or two that do not play nice and something like Altiris SVS has allowed these apps to have their own unique playgrounds.

Torgo | Jan 31, 2008 | 2:21PM

Dreamhost sure likes VM Ware. Now that I'm on Virtual private server they every dime that comes in from google adsense revenue goes directly back out the door to Dreamhost!

Fred X | Jan 31, 2008 | 11:27PM

Problem: My OS can't run two applications without them walking all over each other. Incorrect solution: I'll just give each application its own copy of the operating system even though this requires a hypervisor, much more disk space and twice the memory. Corollary: A Prius doesn't have as much space as a Ford Expedition, but the Prius gets better gas mileage. Incorrect solution: Buy both and tow the Ford Expedition behind the Prius. Maybe someone should just FIX THE OPERATING SYSTEM! For special cases like ISP's and test environments, sure. But just because the kids can't play nicely together doesn't mean you put them each on separate playgrounds!

Chelsius the Great | Jan 31, 2008 | 2:53PM

I see a lot of replies that say "Fix the OS". I wonder how many of these guys have been hating on UNIX and Linux as "unnecessary" or "outdated" now that Windows n+1 is almost here. Apple are on the right track.

Mija Cat | Jan 31, 2008 | 9:49AM

Charles doesn't get it. What happened to the OS loader verifying doing memory tests and diagnostics as the system loads? Which OS doesn't do some basic integrity checks before starting up? Is that the primary reason why we need VMWare? System diagnostics? Ed is right. We've worked hard to be able to run more than one application at a time. VMWare is suggesting that we should have a VM for Word, another for Excel, and another for Outlook? Now I need enough memory to keep 3 copies of Windows just to have it all virtualized. What's the point? Why have windows at all? You've just made VMWare the OS. So should I write my applications to the VMWare API for the sake of performance now?

Chelsius the Great | Jan 31, 2008 | 2:20AM

Mija, this is not a Mac vs. PC stupidity war. I love OS X. But it's stupid to run an entire separate operating system to run an application. Wouldn't you rather have all your applications be native OS X applications? I love BSD, but it would be stupid to insist on running BSD so I can run Windows in a VM under it so that I can run Word. BSD would just be sucking up memory, disk and processor resources. Finally, get off the cross and stop trashing Windows. Say what you will, but most companies I visit get their daily work done on Windows. Most grandmothers are playing Solitaire on Windows. Yes, I know your grandmother is special and can awk and grep with the best of them, or maybe you taught her how to use Ubuntu, but you haven't done her any big favors. When she's with her friends, she wishes she could get another computer that will let her use Word like everybody else, but she doesn't want to hurt your feelings. Wake up and smell the dilithium crystals, geek! OS X is a different story, but until I walk into even 10 Fortune 500 companies and find OS X running on the majority of their computers, it's irrelevant, a niche player, a really really nice niche player. Show me a single NYSE-listed bank or multinational company that is 80% OS X. The world runs on Windows. Just deal with it. Maybe get a girlfriend and stop living at home with your parents and your grandmother. Maybe then she'll be able to buy that Windows box she's been wanting for years instead of the Linux box you force her to keep.

Chelsius the Great | Jan 31, 2008 | 3:34AM

VMWare is not the only game in town, we've been using Citrix on SunRays for 8 years. It is much easier to manage one copy of Office for 15 users than 15 separate copies. The same is true for the OS itself. Users are never without email. If a server fails, the session is restored an a failover server. If a user needs to run a particular application, the user runs a copy of the published application. There is no need to install separate copies on each PC. I will take managing an Ultra-thin client any day over managing a fat client.

TAD | Jan 31, 2008 | 8:08PM

Windows is now like a virus infecting all available cores. The next logical step is a centralised virtualisation server. And when you have too many virtualisation servers, virtualised virtualisation servers.

Andrew | Jan 31, 2008 | 2:59PM

problem: chelsius doesn't like vmware. incorrect solution: post multiple, incoherent replies to his own prediction of its demise. if you're so against virtualization, chelsius, just eat the red pill already.

m | Jan 31, 2008 | 12:27PM

Let me guess. m is one of those Matrix fanatics who wears a black trench coat and worships Keanu Reeves, the man of as little acting talent as m has singularly important thoughts. Doesn't anyone have a new prediction?

Chelsius the Great | Jan 31, 2008 | 5:06AM

Standalone virtualization firms will loose value - their stock prices are artificially high. A P/E: 64.70 this will not last.

CVOS virtual man | Jan 31, 2008 | 2:22PM

add a comment

name:

e-mail:

url (optional):

Comment