-=> Nightfox wrote to Dreamer <=-
Dr> When did they do that? I remember trying the free version for quite a
Dr> while for various things, including Linux.
Ni> I remember them doing that about 8-10 years ago maybe? Things might
Ni> have changed since then.. I think I've seen a Virtual PC setup with
Ni> Linux more recently, but I was pretty sure I remember Microsoft buying
Ni> Virtual PC and using it for some virtualization technology in Windows
Ni> to run other versions of Windows.. Microsoft's Hyper-V is able to run
Ni> Linux fairly well though (we use that at work).
I do remember that part. I've heard XP mode and the like is a direct
descendent of Virtual PC (akin to VirtualBox's seamless mode, probably
with even more direct undocumented hooks). However, I don't think
Microsoft ever intentionally hacked off Linux support... Linux was
simply not supported very well after Microsoft took it.
Hyper-V is a good demonstration of them conceding they made some
mistakes. :)
Dr> Granted, Virtual PC sucked for running Linux, but then again I always
Dr> thought it sucked period. It'd do the job, but nowhere near as
Dr> efficiently as others.
Ni> I figured that was due to Microsoft's influence.. Naturally they
Ni> wouldn't want to let people run other operating systems, lest they lose
Ni> customers to Linux or another OS.
That was their thinking at the time, I'm sure. I don't think they
intended to not let people run a competing OS, but they were too
focused on supporting their own legacy programs going into the future,
and decided not to look at anything else.
I think with Hyper-V, they're demonstrating that they can see how much
an advantage it is to support more than just their own products. By
supporting running other OS's (and not just on an enterprise level),
people don't have to make a choice between the two, and you end up
with more systems running *your* OS than you would otherwise have.
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.49
■ Synchronet ■ Sovereign State BBS
|
