VMware Releases Open Source Virtualization Client

ruphus13 writes in with the news that VMware has finally decided to open-source its client for virtual desktops, releasing it under the LGPL. This was in response to intense pressure from the growing number of Linux distros that include virtualization by default. From the post: "The CEO replacement who entered VMware last year was Paul Maritz, a long-time Microsoft executive with intimate familiarity with how Windows swallowed up entire categories of utility software as it grew up by simply wrapping free utilities into the operating system. Paul knows about that, and he had to have seen last year the dual threats to VMware of open source virtualization offerings and virtualization on board in operating systems. The VMware View Open Client allows businesses to host virtualized desktops in the data center, and users can access their desktops from any device. Going with an open source solution like this was VMware's only choice, especially as Microsoft includes Hyper-V virtualization in Windows Server. I'm sure Maritz was very focused on the Microsoft threat, because he used to be behind similar threats. VMware can grab market share with this move, stave off Microsoft's dominance, and offer support and services around its open source offering.'"

Thanks...

[BlackPignouf]

Thanks, but I'm more than happy with VirtualBox, either open or closed source. Much faster & easier to install on my ubuntu boxes!

Re:VMWare was always a doomed business.

[imcclell]

The problem to that is a matter of perception and money. It's not that there aren't other viable options, it's how people perceive those options. When you talk to a manager in a mid to large size business, every last one of them is aware of VMware, and every last one of them is aware of Hyper-V because MS was so vocal about it. You may see some Fortune 500 guys who are big Sun shops that may talk about OpenBox, but that's not the norm.

So when the higher ups go out for lunch, are they talking about the open source virtual server? Probably not. They're probably talking about VMware or Hyper-V because that's what their friends companies are running.

Also, when was the last time an open source vendor took a higher up to an expensive lunch or on a business trip?

The worst part about corporate IT purchases is that they rarely have anything to do with quality or return on investment. They're usually made on a recomendation of a friend of a higher up, or back room deals. How many times have you seen a CIO go on an expensive all paid "business trip" from a company and all of a sudden you have an exclusive deal with them?

Games?

[chill]

The only reason I have a Windows image at home is for a couple of games. So far, only VMWare Workstation can handle Windows gaming with any decent speed since it supports DirectX. Do any of the other virtualizers work well with gaming? I'm talking about games like COD4, America's Army, and others based on the UT2/UT3 engine.

I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

VMware has too many products. I don't understand the difference between:

• VMware Fusion
• VMware server
• VMware workstation
• VMware view
• VMware ESX
• VMware Player
• VMware ACE

Is VMware viewer this product http://store.vmware.com/servlet/ControllerServlet?Action=DisplayPage&Env=BASE&Locale=en_US&SiteID=vmware&id=ProductDetailsPage&productID=94648100 [vmware.com] ? If so, what does it exactly do for me? Can I create virtual machines? Can I open .vm machines? Can I connect to some remote server hosting and running the machines, like a VNC?

Thanks,
~T~

Re:Thanks...

[morgan_greywolf]

Both are quite easy to deploy and Xen performs faster than ESX, but I never want to even think about running non-clustered virtualization solution. In this aspect does Vmware come in front.

I don't know. I had less trouble deploying ESX than Xen, but it might've been that I was using a somewhat pre-configured/tuned install image of ESX created by the company's operating systems group.

Anyway, Novell sells official support for Xen via SLES and their subscription policy is that one SLES subscription covers all the VMs on the same machine. Hence, the Novell solution was cheaper.

In the end they stayed with ESX, mostly because the CIO was getting kickbacks from VMware.

Re:Thanks...

[postbigbang]

Xen as Novell ships in SUSE 10.1/10.2 is dramatically better, if bereft of tools. xVM is also very good, but suffers the same problem. Adding value is the name of the game, and Maritz fights more than the lackluster implementations of Hyper-V. Ask Microsoft for their Windows 2008 sales numbers and watch them distract you from the question. It's selling like Vista, although it's not bad-- just difficult to value-justify upgrading to.

xVM on the desktop or server is nice... but lacks compatibility that ESX and Xen-alikes are pounding them with. Xen has improved dramatically, even from versions of six months ago. Citrix/XenServer is decent, but the SLES 10.2 version is ready to rock.

Re:Thanks...

[whereareweheadedto]

It was the same with us. We could go for Xen and Novell, but when I talked to my superior, who is a cool guy he asked me, how comfortable would I feel, when something went south and entire company was offline. In such context, Vmware offerings look much better. Altough I have good experience with Novell support, I know that Vmware offers a better one for their products.

R U kidding?

[hesaigo999ca]

> stave off Microsoft's dominance...
I am sorry, everyone knows VMWare had dominance, and never lost it for visualization.
M$ had to buy VirtualPC to compete, and even then could not make it work all that great.
They now improved on the technology with HyperVM, but have yet to transfer any client base from VMWare's list of clients, and therefor still have not come close to dominance.

I hate articles that are clueless about what they write, the writer wants to write a story about VMWare, but should stick with the facts, when they know nothing about the market shares involved.
This will just add to the great lead that VMWare has over any other in the field.

Re:Now how about an ESX Client?

[LNX Systems Engineer]

I hit submit before finding the article, but VMWare was talking about clients for Linux, iPhone (uh, why?), and OS X back in September of 2008. 5 months later and nothing to show for it. http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/151194/vmwares_virtualcenter_coming_to_linux_iphone.html [pcworld.com]

Re:Thanks...

[Znork]

but I never want to even think about running non-clustered virtualization solution.

On a Xen or KVM solution you simply use the distribution's clustering software. Moving VM's is much simpler than most HA clustered applications usually run by such software.

We'll be using the integrated Xen on RHEL5 for most linux virtualization needs, the price of ESX is one part, performance is another large part, and then add the lack of a linux VIC client, various driver issues yet another. And yes, that's in a datacenter setting.

Personally I consider the debate pretty much passe by now; it's like discussing wether to run a third-party TCP/IP stack in the 1990's. Virtualization will be a built in feature like anything else, no more 'third party' than 'fork'. The attempts by VMWare to play up their management tools are irrelevant, the very fact that the built-in techs can utilize the entire OS as underlying capabilities for management and leverage every new development immediately simply means a single company working on proprietary tech hasn't got a chance to keep up.

It's sad to see it happen, but IMO, VMWare have been sitting on their arse for five years cashing in. They could have been far ahead, and they could have dealt with most issues if they'd tried. Instead they're now stuck with a load of customers who use their products only for want of alternatives and who are now ditching ESX et al as each gets their requirements fulfilled elsewhere.