First Look at Windows Server Technical Preview
-
@thanksaj said:
I think his point was that it'd be more likely for someone applying for a job at his office in the future to know Hyper-V over Xen. I hear more about Xen at the enterprise level, and I'm guessing not a ton of those people would apply for a job at @coliver 's office. Just a guess.
Xen in a cloud is huge in the enterprise space. XenServer is the packaging of Xen into a easy to use, SMB friendly (far more friendly than HyperV) virtualization stack.
XenServer is easier to use than VMware is to get a license from. XS is far more SMB friendly than HyperV or VMware in my experience. Licensing alone makes it easier. If you can use VirtualBox, you can use XenServer. If supporting XenServer presents a challenge, your IT staff can't support a Windows server at all.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
I think his point was that it'd be more likely for someone applying for a job at his office in the future to know Hyper-V over Xen. I hear more about Xen at the enterprise level, and I'm guessing not a ton of those people would apply for a job at @coliver 's office. Just a guess.
Xen in a cloud is huge in the enterprise space. XenServer is the packaging of Xen into a easy to use, SMB friendly (far more friendly than HyperV) virtualization stack.
XenServer is easier to use than VMware is to get a license from. XS is far more SMB friendly than HyperV or VMware in my experience. Licensing alone makes it easier. If you can use VirtualBox, you can use XenServer. If supporting XenServer presents a challenge, your IT staff can't support a Windows server at all.
The appearance of having to support something vs the reality can often be very different. Some things that might sound really difficult are really easy, and vice versa. It's all about perception in this case.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
I think his point was that it'd be more likely for someone applying for a job at his office in the future to know Hyper-V over Xen. I hear more about Xen at the enterprise level, and I'm guessing not a ton of those people would apply for a job at @coliver 's office. Just a guess.
Xen in a cloud is huge in the enterprise space. XenServer is the packaging of Xen into a easy to use, SMB friendly (far more friendly than HyperV) virtualization stack.
XenServer is easier to use than VMware is to get a license from. XS is far more SMB friendly than HyperV or VMware in my experience. Licensing alone makes it easier. If you can use VirtualBox, you can use XenServer. If supporting XenServer presents a challenge, your IT staff can't support a Windows server at all.
Isn't licensing for XenServer non- existent now? I was under the impression that the entire thing is now FOSS. Or do you mean support licensing.
Yes, you are correct most people in this area looking for work in IT are exactly as you describe them... which to many would make the choice trivial but I still think that more people are going to recognize HyperV then they would XenServer in this area.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
It's not a superior product. It isn't as powerful, robust or cheap (at scale) as VMware and it lacks the extensive free features and maturity of XenServer. So why would anyone choose HyperV intentionally if they understood it as a product?
Because it's Microsoft. I run a Microsoft & HP site here. Not because their products are the best, in most cases they aren't. My reasons are:
- It makes my life simpler to stick with as few vendors as possible.
- Microsoft & HP aren't likely to get bought out, so I'm more confident their products will continue to be maintained and supported.
- I find Microsoft & HP fairly good with their pricing strategy - they rarely shock me. I hate some vendors that double, or triple maintenance fees just because they can.
- It's relatively easy to bring in outside help with Microsoft & HP expertise.
- Microsoft & HP don't generally release shit products. Mediocre ones, yes, but not shit ones. So the brand reputation matters to me.
So I'm likely to choose a Microsoft or HP product even it's inferior. But only if it's a little bit inferior. I don't go crazy. So I still went with VMware in this case. I'm just saying that being a superior product isn't the only factor.
-
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
I think his point was that it'd be more likely for someone applying for a job at his office in the future to know Hyper-V over Xen. I hear more about Xen at the enterprise level, and I'm guessing not a ton of those people would apply for a job at @coliver 's office. Just a guess.
Xen in a cloud is huge in the enterprise space. XenServer is the packaging of Xen into a easy to use, SMB friendly (far more friendly than HyperV) virtualization stack.
XenServer is easier to use than VMware is to get a license from. XS is far more SMB friendly than HyperV or VMware in my experience. Licensing alone makes it easier. If you can use VirtualBox, you can use XenServer. If supporting XenServer presents a challenge, your IT staff can't support a Windows server at all.
Isn't licensing for XenServer non- existent now? I was under the impression that the entire thing is now FOSS. Or do you mean support licensing.
Yes, you are correct most people in this area looking for work in IT are exactly as you describe them... which to many would make the choice trivial but I still think that more people are going to recognize HyperV then they would XenServer in this area.
To agree with this and @Carnival-Boy's points, it's about knowing the job market. People see XenServer, someone might have no idea that they could easily learn it. They just see it and freak out. They see Hyper-V, think Microsoft, and might be just as clueless, but it doesn't scare them as much. It also won't scare management. Management hears they are using Microsoft's hypervisor, they simply hear Microsoft and are good with that. They hear Xen and they lose their shit because they've never heard of that, or it's new and different, or now they would have to find someone who knows Xen, even if that wasn't hard, in their mind, it's just another complication. I can see why this was done.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
- Microsoft & HP aren't likely to get bought out, so I'm more confident their products will continue to be maintained and supported.
HP just split and were on the market to sell. Microsoft is very unlikely to be bought, but is far more likely to be bought than the Linux Foundation is (because you can't buy that.) Your confidence is well placed, but I'd say that the Linux Foundation gives you even more protection than that.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
- I find Microsoft & HP fairly good with their pricing strategy - they rarely shock me. I hate some vendors that double, or triple maintenance fees just because they can.
I do too. But compared to the Linux Foundation that has a contractual guarantee that their products are free, no matter what, it's not as good. XenServer is free, period. Even if they wanted to make it not free, they don't have any means of doing that.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
- It's relatively easy to bring in outside help with Microsoft & HP expertise.
That's true. But my point was that XenServer is just as easy, or easier, than HyperV to not need outside help or to get it when you need it. XenServer is super trivial to support, any MSP that can't support that shouldn't be an MSP that you are calling. HyperV and HP are super easy to support, but not quite as easy as XenServer.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
- Microsoft & HP don't generally release shit products. Mediocre ones, yes, but not shit ones. So the brand reputation matters to me.
Neither does the Linux Foundation. I would argue that they track record is vastly ahead of Microsoft. They have no Windows ME fiascos or anything like that. Their track record is effectively flawless. Not everything is a slam dunk, but there have been no major missteps at all. What brand outshines Linux? Some may rival, but I doubt any actually surpasses.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
- It makes my life simpler to stick with as few vendors as possible.
This is the one that I hear often and makes sense, if you are using Microsoft for support. If not, then I'd say that it doesn't really matter. Or if you are using a vendor who does Microsoft and XenServer, then your interface is still a single support vendor. So it might matter or not depending on your support infrastructure.
-
@thanksaj said:
To agree with this and @Carnival-Boy's points, it's about knowing the job market. People see XenServer, someone might have no idea that they could easily learn it. They just see it and freak out.
That was my entire point - HyperV chosen because of confusion.
-
@thanksaj said:
I can see why this was done.
Exactly. I totally see why it is done. You just wrote out "confusion" in a really lengthy way. I never said that I didn't understand, my point was that I did understand and I was stating why.
