分类：
2007-03-01 06:54:29
February 23, 2007
| 1 | |
| 2 | |
| 3 | |
| 4 | |
| 5 | |
| 6 | |
| 7 | |
Microsoft is trying to restrict customers’ flexibility and freedom to choose virtualization software by limiting who can run their software and how they can run it. Microsoft is leveraging its ownership of the market leading operating system and numerous applications that are market leaders in their respective categories (Exchange, SQL Server, Active Directory) to drive customers to use Microsoft virtualization products. Their tactics are focused on software licensing and distribution terms (for SQL Server, Exchange, Windows Server, Vista) and through the APIs and formats for virtualized Windows.
In particular, Microsoft does not have key virtual infrastructure capabilities (like VMotion), and they are making those either illegal or expensive for customers; Microsoft doesn't have virtual desktop offerings, so they are denying it to customers; and Microsoft is moving to control this new layer that sits on the hardware by forcing their specifications and APIs on the industry. Included below in this document are explanations with supporting details of some of these specific areas.
Virtualization opens up new enabling models for IT customers and technology vendors. To fully achieve this vision, the industry must ensure fundamental market choice and ecosystem interoperability. Microsoft operating systems and applications are both market dominant and they deliver value to customers. However, customers and vendors require freedom of choice to implement and deliver applications and operating systems from any vendor with any chosen virtual hardware platform. Microsoft is not acting in customers’ best interests when they attempt to force an integrated virtual hardware/operating system/application stack for their operating system and applications. Customers require an “any to any” interoperability model where Microsoft application stacks can run freely with licensing, open APIs, and support equivalence on non-Microsoft virtual hardware to Microsoft’s own virtualization technologies.
Situation: Microsoft has committed to offer commercially reasonable support to customers virtualizing Microsoft products if the customer is a Premier-level support customer. Across the industry, major software vendors have moved to similar positions (for all of their customers, not just a certain support tier).
Impact: This is fine for Premier-level support customers. For customers who purchase VMware products directly (or from an authorized reseller) and who do not have a Microsoft Premier-level support agreement, Microsoft’s level of support is more restrictive. Microsoft support specialists may request that customers first replicate the issue on a physical machine. Microsoft’s Knowledge Base describes this policy. If Microsoft is able to offer support for Premier-level customers, there is no technical reason to deny the same to all customers.
Situation: Microsoft has begun to publish restrictive terms on the use of published VMs. Specifically, Microsoft has posted language that restricts use of their VHD-formatted VMs (“VHDs”) to MS Virtual Server and/or Virtual PC only (as opposed to VMware products, which also run VHDs). Examples include this :
Specific Language: (introduced November 6, 2006 – link is the one above)
This is a pre-configured VHD image that requires Virtual Server 2005 R2 installed on your system. Please refer to the Virtual Server 2005 R2 System requirements page .
Impact: The ability to run Windows virtual appliances on any virtualization platform is important to customers as well as hardware and software vendors who need to use Windows-based software and technology. Limiting the use of Windows virtual machines to Microsoft virtualization products eliminates choice and competition in the marketplace.
In contrast, VMware announced in April 2006 that its , was openly available and freely usable to anyone who wanted to do so. Since then, over 2000 vendors and developers have requested to review and use the VMDK specification.
VMware started its virtual appliance initiative in 2004, and today there are over available on the VMware Technology Network (ranging from Oracle databases to CRM packages to firewalls to email security solutions to operating systems like Red Hat Enterprise Linux). These are all freely downloadable (with tens of thousands of downloads each week) and usable by any user regardless of platform or product.
Addendum/Update (April 30, 2007):
Some Microsoft VHDs are now configured to de-activate themselves if they are run on any virtualization product besides Microsoft Virtual PC or Virtual Server (for example, this ).
Specific Language: (screen shots from virtual machine published by Microsoft on November 30, 2006)
Impact: This is an even more aggressive mechanism to force users to run virtual machines on Microsoft products, essentially undermining customer choice.
Addendum/Update (April 30, 2007):
Another restriction is that Microsoft’s VHD End User License Agreements forbid the conversion of the Microsoft VMs into any virtual machine format other than the VHD format. Microsoft is strictly enforcing their VHD format on users and ISVs as a closed ecosystem and not allowing compatibility or translation with other formats (for example, this ).
Furthermore, Microsoft’s agreements require the use of a Microsoft-controlled VHD qualification tool that VHDs containing Microsoft software must pass before being distributable by hardware or software vendors, and also give Microsoft the unilateral right to audit and disqualify any installations of third-party software in Windows VHDs. These tactics allow Microsoft to arbitrarily disable a competitor’s VMs or VM formats and make them unusable for anyone seeking to distribute them.
Specific Language: (from Microsoft EULA for XP VM published November 2006)
You may install and use one copy of the software on your device of which you are running a validly licensed copy of Microsoft Virtual PC or Microsoft Virtual Server. You may not change or convert the virtual hard disk image from the VHD format.
Impact: The restrictions on translating and manipulating Microsoft VMs in other virtual machine formats is another way that Microsoft is trying to stall adoption and innovation with virtualization by ISVs and end users. Without the ability to use other formats with virtualized versions of Microsoft software, other virtualization products and technologies are kept out of the market.
Situation: One of the most important benefits of virtualization is the mobility of virtual machines, given that an entire application and operating system environment can be encapsulated in a virtual machine and then moved from machine to machine, replicated to disaster recovery sites, and migrated without downtime from one machine to another dynamically through VMotion. Most virtualization customers have adopted and actively use capabilities such as VMotion and Distributed Resource Scheduling to balance resources across their applications and hardware, avoid hardware downtime, and facilitate scaling and responsiveness in their IT infrastructure.
Recent changes in Microsoft licensing have taken a negative stance on mobility and virtualization. These ask for permanent assignment of operating system licenses to hardware and then restrict the movement of those operating system licenses, even for virtualized environments that can be moved seamlessly from machine to machine. In particular, the policy is aimed at prohibiting movement of Windows Server licenses more than once per 90 days.
Specific Language: (p.12, Licensing Microsoft Server Products with Microsoft Virtual Server and Other Virtual Machine Technologies, October 2006 – the link is the one above)
Under both the previous and updated licensing, as a Microsoft volume licensing customer, you may reassign software licenses for products in the Microsoft Servers licensing models, but not on a short-term basis. “Short-term basis” means more frequently than within 90 days of the last assignment (or reassignment).
Impact: This licensing moves customers to pay Microsoft for additional Windows Server licenses or acquire new Windows Server Datacenter Edition licenses even if the customer is not increasing the net number of Windows Server instances that are being run. Volume customers of Microsoft have traditionally received flexibility on how Microsoft licenses are deployed, and this new policy rescinds the previous policy allowing flexible allocation of Windows licenses that customers have already paid for.
Microsoft customers are, in effect, limited from realizing the benefits of virtualization innovations. Microsoft seems to intend to deter customers from leveraging virtual machine mobility (a technology which Microsoft does not have) by levying an economic tax on the use of such functionality.
Addendum/Update (April 30, 2007):
Microsoft allows customers to move a desktop operating system from one system to another provided that it is uninstalled on the previous system. Windows Vista only allows customers to do this one time, effectively prohibiting vMotion or transferring their desktop virtual machine more than once. In Windows XP Professional, Microsoft only required that a user uninstall it completely from the previous machine with no limit on the number of transfers. For Windows Vista versions that are allowed to run in a virtual machine (Enterprise and Ultimate), users may not utilize any content protected by Microsoft digital, information, or enterprise rights management technology, thereby reducing the value of Windows running in a virtual machine.
Addendum/Update (April 30, 2007):
Addendum/Update (April 30, 2007):
Customers today cannot purchase a desktop operating system from an OEM installed in a virtual machine requiring them to purchase the license retail. In addition, they cannot transfer an existing OEM Windows desktop license into a virtual machine.
In 2000, VMware had an OEM license to redistribute Windows in a VMware virtual machine. VMware was unable to renew this agreement in 2003 and since.
Addendum/Update (April 30, 2007):
Microsoft has recently announced a prohibition on virtualizing the less expensive versions of Vista (Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium). has been that virtualization is not broadly usable by consumers or other mass market users, and therefore should be restricted only to the more expensive versions of Vista. This contention stands in contrast to the several million users of software like VMware Workstation and VMware Player who have adopted virtualization for their general purpose desktops and also Microsoft’s granting of an OEM license to VMware in 2000.
Impact: Microsoft seems to be moving to block desktop virtualization on multiple fronts — including mobility, OEM distribution, and Vista licensing. Customers will be prohibited from getting the substantial benefits of virtualization on the desktop without making onerous and redundant payments to Microsoft as most standard licensing paths for Windows have been blocked with respect to desktop virtualization.
Situation: Microsoft has developed proprietary APIs (including but not limited to what Microsoft calls “Enlightenments”) for Longhorn that manage communication between Windows and Microsoft’s hypervisor. Microsoft disclosed these API specifications at the WinHEC conference in June 2006, but is not permitting use of these APIs by other virtualization vendors or open source projects. The one exception is Novell, which agreed to give Microsoft critical operating system intellectual property rights and ongoing payments to Microsoft in return.
In contrast, VMware has participated and contributed heavily to open community work that implements paravirtualization APIs for any virtualization platform and any OS. This paravirtualization technology is freely available and is getting broadly adopted by Linux, Xen, kvm, etc.
Impact: By controlling the APIs for virtualized Windows, Microsoft is attempting to limit virtualization options and innovation for customers, ISVs, and hardware vendors. Microsoft must open their operating system APIs for virtualization so that they can be freely used by other vendors, customers, and developers to implement and distribute virtual hardware platforms that can run Windows guests as they would run on the Viridian hypervisor/virtual hardware platform. This includes access to the following specifications and the right to use and implement those APIs/specifications:
Microsoft needs to fundamentally accommodate market choice and interoperability. Customers require freedom of choice to implement both Microsoft and non-Microsoft applications running on Windows with any chosen system virtualization layer. Customers do not benefit from being forced into a homogenous virtualization/OS/application stack.
To address these customer requirements, Microsoft needs to follow business practices, licensing and technology disclosure policies that result in the ability of Windows-based applications and OS’s to be created, licensed, supported and distributed equivalently on Microsoft or non-Microsoft system virtualization stacks. This includes evaluation, OEM licensing, software distribution, and production use cases, as well as free and unrestricted use for technical specifications and APIs for third parties.
