I frankly have run into no customer yet who is running XenSource.Ī virtual guest coming out of a RHEL inherits those characteristics. The Russian military has RHEL certified as the most secure operating system available, period. It is certainly considered the most secure operating system. The security regiment that is in Linux was originally heavily contributed by the NSA. Secondly, a lot of long hard work has gone into a whole bunch of areas within the operating system that are inherited by virtual guests. So adding a whole layer? To enable hardware and be involved in those technology roadmaps just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
#SKETCHUP PRO 2015 MAC DRIVERS#
The Linux community spends a lot of time, and hardware manufacturers and chip OEM manufacturers, spend a lot of time writing drivers and enabling hardware already in Linux and in Windows. I say that for several reasons.įirst off, a big, big chunk of virtualisation is hardware enablement, and hardware enablement is something already being done by us - and the Linux community.
Virtualisation should be part of the operating system, not a separate layer. This is actually one place where Microsoft and Red Hat agree. We are gaining quite a bit of momentum with our virtualisation.
I frankly have run into no customer yet who is running XenSource. VMWare, no question, was first to the market. How do you plan to compete with VMWare, Citrix and now Microsoft in this space? You offered virtualisation in RHEL 5 - but you aren't known for it. If you're building a new architectural paradigm, why would you do it on proprietary hardware and risk lock-in?
#SKETCHUP PRO 2015 MAC SOFTWARE#
I think building a new architectural cloud around proprietary software is inadvisable at this point in time.
However there is no question that functionality will drive a move to more cloud-type environments. I guess whether they are internal private grids or clouds, or whether those are public, or semi-private, that's still to be determined, because that's a lot around specific business models. If you look at the economics, there is not question that it is cheaper to generate a computing cycle in a centralised farm I'm a big believer that economics will win in the long run, as we see more and more functionality move to large server farms that are centrally managed. That includes utilisation, the cost of hardware, the maintenance and support, etc. I am not sure it is quite as big as going from mainframe and terminal to client/server, but it's certainly a significant change in architecture.īasically, if you look at the economics, there is not question that it is cheaper to generate a computing cycle in a centralised farm of commodity server hardware than it is in the current client server environment. Whitehurst: I do believe that we are at an inflection point in the IT architecture. Q: When you were last interviewed by CNET ( 's sister site), you said your central priority was cloud computing.