Windows Server 2008 R2 Thread, Hyper-V vs *nix, Why? in Technical; Grrrr, why does every *nix vendor go out of their way to break support for Hyper-V. There are kernel extensions, ...
-
14th November 2012, 02:58 PM #1 Hyper-V vs *nix, Why?
Grrrr, why does every *nix vendor go out of their way to break support for Hyper-V. There are kernel extensions, which they exclude and integration components (now up to 3.4) which are never included.
Trying to sort out some internet connection load balancing and fault tolerance. We use Hyper-V and it works great with Windows and even Ubuntu. Try something like ClearOS or Zeroshell and your limited to legacy adapters because they have purposefully broken the kernel for Hyper-V synthetic networking. Why does *nix insist on locking stuff out at the kernel level, have they heard of drivers, they are this cool new thing that lets you use non 'sainted' hardware. Sure I can spend another hour or so figuring out how to recompile the kernel and another day cleaning up the mess that makes of the rest of it thanks to the update but it does make you appreciate drivers.
My question is why they go so far out of their way to break support for a platform, I can only attribute it to malice at this point.
Last edited by SYNACK; 14th November 2012 at 03:00 PM.
-
-
IDG Tech News
-
14th November 2012, 03:00 PM #2 
Originally Posted by
SYNACK
Grrrr, why does every *nix vendor go out of their way to break support for Hyper-V. There are kernel extensions, which they exclude and integration components (now up to 3.4) which are never included.
My question is why they go so far out of their way to break support for a platform, I can only attribute it to malice at this point.
That's MS actually. When MS first started with hyperV they worked with the *nix community. Then all of a sudden decided to change their licencing so that it was incompatible with GPL/GNU.
-
-
14th November 2012, 03:03 PM #3 
Originally Posted by
j17sparky
That's MS actually. When MS first started with hyperV they worked with the *nix community. Then all of a sudden decided to change their licencing so that it was incompatible with GPL/GNU.
How come Ubuntu and proper CentOS manage then? Are they less extreme in their interpretations.
-
-
14th November 2012, 03:24 PM #4 It's tricky sometimes when you have a "speciality" distro to bump kernels. I know we suffer hyper-v legacy drivers, although we have an upcoming release which includes "the good stuff" it is going to be a long time in test.
-
Thanks to tom_newton from:
SYNACK (14th November 2012)
SHARE: 
Similar Threads
-
By Rozzer in forum Windows Server 2008
Replies: 3
Last Post: 5th November 2012, 10:44 AM
-
By Gongalong in forum Windows Server 2008 R2
Replies: 5
Last Post: 22nd September 2012, 08:24 PM
-
By GrumbleDook in forum Bad Experiences
Replies: 8
Last Post: 30th June 2006, 09:51 PM
-
By Dos_Box in forum General Chat
Replies: 0
Last Post: 30th August 2005, 08:18 AM
-
By tarquel in forum Wireless Networks
Replies: 4
Last Post: 27th August 2005, 07:33 AM
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules