Nice one Microsoft !! Not !

[gogogo5]

So most of us have read VMware's document on Microsoft's virtualisation strategy and the points made over licensing and support.

I then find this Microsoft KB article released on March 22nd 2007 http://support.microsoft.com/?id=909840 and was concerned to see this statement:

Important:[/b] Microsoft Windows SharePoint Services 2007 and SharePoint Server 2007 are supported only on Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2.

What! So how does this KB released 5 days ago fit into Microsoft's rebuttal comment by Mike Neil, General Manager of Virtualization Strategy at Microsoft:

Microsoft believes the claims made in VMware's whitepaper contain several inaccuracies and misunderstandings of our current license and use policies, our support policy[/b] and our commitment to technology collaboration.

We believe it's better to resolve VMware's claims between our two companies so that we can better serve customers and the industry. EMC is a long-time partner of Microsoft. We've extended this courtesy to VMware due to our mutual customers and partnership with EMC. We are committed to continuing to collaborate with VMware as we have been doing on regular basis. Consistent with this, Microsoft believes that we will be able to accommodate a mutually agreeable solution between our two companies and clear up any existing misunderstanding with regard to the points raised in the whitepaper.[/i]

Yes, this really does show the collaboration going on so that "we can better serve customers and the industry"....

[paulo_meireles]

Don't panic. We've been FUDed my Microsoft representatives many times on this issue. Here's how to deal with it.

1 - Tell them that "Ok, if needed, we will de-virtualize the server[/b] (V2P)..."[/i] and, while they are still smiling, add "... but we will re-virtualize it[/b] as soon as you have solved the real[/u] problem."[/i] I have still to be told to do it, and it's been 2 years since I started saying this.

2 - The bluff didn't work? No problem. They support Virtual Server R2? Nice. Convert the VM to Virtual Server and, after they've solved the problem, convert it back to VMware. It's easier doing V2V than doing V2P.

See, for every political problem there is a technical work-around... We just have to be creative! :smileygrin:

Paulo

[DFATAnt]

Great strategy Paulo. Well said.

[gogogo5]

thanks for sharing your workaround, its the long term implications of this that is worrisome. I wonder if the next version of SQL Server 2000x, Exchange 200x etc will have similar clauses.

[acr]

I think in the long term these issues political issues will be resolved.. I don't think MS will be allowed to stifle Virtualization..

Green issues alone are i think a very under played card and MS politically should be made to stand in line and allow ALL vendors to support Virtualizing there Apps.. A stratagy we all win from.. (espcially the planet..)

Or as things progress, the move in and out of Virtual Worlds will become a seamless and quick exercise..

[gogogo5]

I completely agree acr. The environment will also be a key winner too in this argument. Maybe Al Gore should pop along to Microsoft for a chat

[paulo_meireles]

thanks for sharing your workaround, its the long term implications of this that is worrisome.

As Keynes said, "In the long run we are all dead."[/i] I try not to get too anxious about these "long term" issues; indeed, I believe that there is no such thing as "long term" in IT. Our reasonable horizon is, maybe, one year or two. Beyond that and we enter the science-fiction (or cheap astrology) world. Keep things simple - they'll be easier to port to a new paradigm. Change will come, we just don't know from where. Also take into account that change is expensive, so if we manage to keep the status quo[/i] with a few hacks and skip a generation entirely (we are now finishing our migration from NT 4.0 to XP/2003...) we may save a bunch of money - and be the CFO's local hero for a full quarter.

Just my €0,02...

Paulo

[gogogo5]

yeah, but tell that to Netscape...

[paulo_meireles]

yeah, but tell that to Netscape...

I don't work for any software house or manufacturer, so I don't share tehse worries; even if I did, we can all adapt, and embrace new technologies as they come. Remember, a few years ago "virtualization" was just a mainframe thing... When it gets commoditized we will have to find something else to do for a living...

[gogogo5]

I don't disagree with you, I know that in 100 years time we will all be dead and then what's the worry.

I am just saying that a seed had been planted in that if Microsoft end up extending their policy on support to match that of Windows SharePoint Services 2007 and SharePoint Server 2007 to all their future products then how do you convince your manager, CTO, President, etc to invest in non-Microsoft virtualisation software and at the same time say that you will not be supported? I acknowledge your workarounds but this can get very labour intensive to V2P and V2V if you look after hundreds of servers in which suddenly 8 of them need Microsoft support.

I know this is purely speculation at the moment but whats so special about SharePoint Server 2007 that all of a sudden its only supported under R2. Its just not right.

anyway, know any good meditation books?

[paulo_meireles]

I know this is purely speculation at the moment but whats so special about SharePoint Server 2007 that all of a sudden its only supported under R2. Its just not right.

They do it because they can. Period. We can do three things: accept it, regulate it, or rebel against it as a consumer. I tend to be a bit on the liberal side, so I prefer sabotaging their efforts with Counter-FUD (like the workaround above).

I acknowledge your workarounds but this can get very labour intensive to V2P and V2V if you look after hundreds of servers in which suddenly 8 of them need Microsoft support.

Remember the Cold War? Not a single bomb was dropped, they only threatened to[/b]. Consider ourselves in a Cold War with Microsoft. We don't need to V2P or V2V; we just need to threaten to. Eventually we will have to do it once or twice, but most of the time they will retreat. Even if they don't, it's not that much work, unless you have esoteric stuff like clusters. By the way, have you noticed that Microsoft clusters are getting harder and harder to implement on ESX? RDMs, local storage... Who's sabotaging who? 😐

anyway, know any good meditation books?

Sorry, last time I saw, the new VI3 Book[/url] wasn't still out...

Paulo

[sheetsb]

Microsoft's position is troubling in many respects. Yes it is FUD, but my management starts getting concerned and starts asking if VMware is the right way to go, especially if Microsoft is going to make things difficult. We haven't had any problems requiring their assistance or tech support. That is the least of the worries. When they start making products that will only run on their virtual server platform, which I believe they have done, that is a problem.

I am a very strong supporter of VMware, like everyone else in this forum probably is. I hate to see this type of politics making it difficult to justify increased investment in a product when Microsoft seems to want it dead.

My $.02...

Bill S.

[oreeh]

When they start making products that will only run on their virtual server platform, which I believe they have done, that is a problem.

IMHO this is not a real problem - as Paulo said - then we threaten them.

You can use Notes or Groupwise or other products instead of Exchange.

You can use Firefox instead of IE, use OpenOffice instead of MS Office, ...

Microsoft still has competitors - though most managers tend to use the "No Panic" glasses to avoid recognizing them.

[sheetsb]

I was actually thinking of some of Microsoft's virtual machines that they use for training or evaluations of products. I remember there was something in the VMWare whitepaper about this and we have already seen it with some of our training classes. But there is also the issue of license agreements.

As for the other products, management typically sees only one vendor...Microsoft. We currently use Groupwise but we are switching to Exchange. We use Novell for file and print services but must move to Windows for these services. It goes on and on.

We only have the options management will actually let us use. Here, for the most part, linux isn't considered an option for much of anything. The only visible option on the horizon is Microsoft.

Bill S.

[JBraes]

Bill,

I share your concerns.

But if you go to your management point out the stuff you can do with VMWare and you can't do with Microsoft VirtualServer.

The magic words are "Vmotion and HighAvailability".

If you pay my ticket from Belgium To Portland I will be at your service to kick butt. Im ready to take on every sales/tech Dude Microsoft throws at me their product is so inferior to VMWare. Just tell your mangement that if they wanne play in "the little league" they go and play wit Microsoft, if they wanne play with the big boys the join us.

(Read it again , and now imagine a blacka and white movie of Martin L. King, doing one of his speeches)

[gogogo5]

Was it something I said???

I revisted the Microsoft link in my first post at the top and the support policy has been changed (for the better!). It was revised on April 17th 2007 and now adds the bullet point stating:

Support will be provided on a commercially-reasonable-effort basis for issues that occur with Windows SharePoint Services 3.0 products in a virtual environment and with SharePoint Server 2007 products in a virtual environment only for hardware virtualization other than Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2.[/i]

This is move in the right direction.