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.
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.
Originally Posted by SYNACK
How come Ubuntu and proper CentOS manage then? Are they less extreme in their interpretations.
Originally Posted by j17sparky
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.