Someday they're going to realize VMware is arbitrating access to their hardware and is therefore an operating system, Windows (or Linux) on top of it is just a ridiculously large API compatibility layer, and they only need that until they buy or build native VMware apps to do the same work (I think the marketers call them "appliances").
People are realizing that. Why do you need a Windows file server when a NetApp speaks CIFS? You would need some sort of storage array anyway!
Even these days, an awful lot of Windows servers are doing exactly what Netware was doing before them, file and print serving. MS obviously recognize this with the new Server Core Edition. But printers are first-class citizens too now, many of them don't need a server, they just plug directly into the network, run their own admin app over HTTP...
>And he's right, if we look around we see lots of 3rd generation Frameworks and some of them are more cross platform than others. We all know about Java and .Net but Cocoa for MacOS X (Found on your Mac and your iPhone) Adobe Air, Microsoft Silverlight and so on are all examples of Third Generation Frameworks.
Microsoft does have a virtualization product, but I'm pretty sure they'll sell you a search engine too. It's pretty evident that 10 years from now, virtualization will be as standard in mainstream operating systems as cooperative multitasking. But that's VMWare's problem, not MSFT's.
What VMware sells is the tools for managing large estates of virtual infrastructure. That's a problem that isn't solved just by having a virtualization layer in your OS.
Here is one simple threat, happened to me using VirtualBox but same applies on VMWare.
Say you got 10 Linux Machines on your startup.
Your developers are all doing their development on the linux but have to test the product on windows as well. Moreover, you need to author/edit/view some files on windows/ms office.
Since you are running your windows/ms office instance on a virtual machine, you will need to buy a single license for the product and then once you had it activated, you can simply clone the machines across the network having each one of your developer his/her own copy of this windows instance.
In this case it might or might not be legally permitted but there can be a virtual product which breaks the licensing model without breaking the law.
I think the whole premise of the article has to be re-examined. Microsoft doesn't have "a rival", per se-- it is competing in too many different arenas, and may or may not have significant rivals in each of them.
it(MSFT) is competing in too many different arenas
That is one of the reasons I don't like them. Whenever someone comes up with something innovative, MSFT jumps into that area, copies the concepts; uses the financial muscle and its huge presence the existing markets to kill the competition. Netscape is only an example of that strategy. It's a bad thing for a lot of potential startups.
I definitely meant as a Microsoft competitor. I read the article's emphasis on virtualization as an explanation of VMWare's product, not as the emphasis of the article.
Microsoft is a little slow on the defense as well. Apparently Windows Ultimate comes with a virtual XP mode that pales in comparison to even VMware's free product, Player. Keep it up VMware :)
The products that are actually useful (eg workstation) are not free. Even those products you mentioned are free only in the sense of free beer -- with obligatory registration.
