11 Jun
2009
11 Jun
'09
10:58 a.m.
Pontus Pihlgren wrote:
VM, of course. (And CP-67, if you want to go way back...)
Peace... Sridhar
These people
think it's efficient to run a copy of Windows 2003 on a
server (which needs a couple of gig of RAM to work well) and then run
multiple VMs on that containing copies of Windows 2003 or other
flavours of Windows. They think virtualisation is new and clever and
it doesn't occur to them that not only is this wasteful of resources,
but it's a nightmare to keep all those copies patched and current.
I'm curious, what OS:es and software did virtualisation before
VMware/XEN/Virtualbox and the like ?