VMware Blasts Microsoft's Virtualization Licensing Policies

Advertisement (Why?)

VMware has slammed Microsoft's virtualization licensing and distribution policies as restrictive and anti-competitive. In a multi-page white paper posted Monday on its Web site, the Palo Alto, Calif. leading virtualization software company came out swinging, alleging that Microsoft is "forcing" its virtualization APIs and formats on the industry and leveraging its leading server applications such as Exchange, SQL Server and Windows Server to force customers to use Microsoft's virtualization offerings.

Microsoft currently offers a standalone Virtual Server 2005 and Virtual Server 2005 R2 but is busy building its next generation virtualization hypervisor into its next major Windows server upgrade, code-named Longhorn. The hypervisor, code named Viridian, will ship as an add-on to the Longhorn Server but eventually will be integrated into the server operating system, Microsoft promises. That could stem the popularity of VMware's software layer, which resides between the bare metal server and applications, as a substitute for the operating system.

View: The full story

News source: CRN

#1 zeta_immersion on 27 Feb 2007 - 13:38

and i thought monopoly was greedy, oh man, do they even know that they are doing anymore since (not me especially) but others pay for this crap?

#2 Tech001101 on 27 Feb 2007 - 17:38

I smell another Anti-trust suit coming.

protectionism. That is really not very open to competition is it?.

(3 replies) #3 officesheep9 on 27 Feb 2007 - 18:14

Oh please, Microsoft can't add features to its OS because someone else somewhere is making an application that does that?

Well, then we need to remove the Windows Firewall, Windows Defender, Windows Mail, etc etc etc ...what a stupid argument. Microsoft would be unable to innovate and unable to add features if this argument was legitimate. What a joke.

#3.1 C_Guy on 27 Feb 2007 - 19:13

They've been battling this crap for years.

Perfect example: Microsoft includes Internet Explorer with Windows. They took a beating for this innovation. It was even called "anti-competitive"

Meanwhile, Apple includes Safari (it's own brand of web browser) in its operating system and no one bats an eye. In other words, Apple is allowed to innovate whereas Microsoft is punished. It's never actually about the principle (otherwise Apple would have faced a similar situation) but rather who has the most cash we can grab?

If Microsoft didn't have to keep paying for this stupid, base-less lawsuits that are thrown at them as quick cash grabs they probably wouldn't charge so much for their software.

#3.2 +Octol on 27 Feb 2007 - 21:14

Quote -

If Microsoft didn't have to keep paying for this stupid, base-less lawsuits...

While Microsoft does fight off many of the lawsuits against it, it rolls over and surrenders to altogether too many of them (read: EC).

As long a Microsoft shows itself to be a willing victim, the predators will keep on coming, and it will continue having to either raise prices or find new revenue sources or methods to keep up.

This is a lose-lose scenario for everyone.

#3.3 ichi on 27 Feb 2007 - 21:24

Search the forums, that has been explained over and over

Now, I do understand that some people just don't want to understand, but that's a different issue.

#4 macrosslover on 27 Feb 2007 - 23:05

hmm I have to read more about this, I don't know who to favor in this particular case because the eula of Vista is extremely retarded but retarded doesn't necessarily make it illegal. we'll see how this pans out, but either way vmare is suing, as soon as they said anti-competitive i could forsee it lol

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Neowin.net