[NTLUG:Discuss] If not VMWare 2.x or UML...then what?

[Chris Cox]

Richard wrote:
> Well, I've about had it with VMWare Server 2.x.  The stability is not 
> there, the bugs are too numerous and managing the blasted thing via an 
> http browser is painfully slow.
> 
> UML is great for virtualizing linux, but what if one wanted to 
> virtualize a Redmond OS?
> 
> 
> So, what are viable options that one can put into production?   What are 
> the benefits, limitations, gotchas?

Well the enterprise product was called ESX 3.5, it's now called vSphere 4.
There's the limited ESXi versions, but the expensive version ESX, is
pretty stellar... though expensive.  If money is no object, I'd
go ESX.

> 
> I need to find something else.  I'm not liking where VMWare is going.
> 

Really?  I sort of liked VMware Server myself.  I use that one at
home and at work.  My XP at work is fulltime under VMware Server 2.whatever.
No big issues with it.  You had to manage ESX 3.5 using a WINDOWS only client
(unless you want to use the command line.. but that's only with the real
non-"i" product, which comes with a mgmt Red Hat VM).

Alternatives to consider on the cheap,

Virtualbox (VM from a Sun acquisition. Easy to setup and use, gets very high marks)

Xen (probably the one direct from Citrix, but not liked by the kernel developers, considered to be the fastest)

KVM (the upcoming VM that is built into the Linux kernel, from a Red Hat acquisition, known for NOT being the
easiest to deal with currently).