These Things Matter To Me

VMware’s vCloud Express holds a unique position of offering an API that is both a provider API, and a low-level virtualization API.  This has  the potential to give users/customers an incredible amount of freedom in terms of both providers, and virtualization technologies.  However, it’s bit late to the Internet (external cloud) party, and people can be skeptical about late arrivals declaring themselves a Standard. So to be a good citizen both symbolically and practically, VMware needs to build some bridges with some existing efforts, not just invite others to its party.

But who?

Libcloud.  If VMware is all really all about freedom, it needs to work with other efforts equally invested in user freedom, and libcloud is all about provider flexibility.

Wait. What’s libcloud?

Libcloud aims to be a unified interface to cloud (infrastructure) providers. It’s company/provider agnostic, and speaks to provider API’s. It’s built for people who need to to talk to the cloud that they don’t own, like EC2, Slicehost, etc. (Yes, other projects have the same vision, and many want to standardize the cloud, but frankly libcloud has gotten farther than anybody, in less time than anybody, with real code living sitting in github right now.).
The main user/sponsor of libcloud is Cloudkick, who makes a really nice monitoring/management dashboard for popular providers (BTW, I really recommend Cloudkick, no affiliation.)

VMware totally wants tools like Cloudkick to work with vCloud Express providers.

Cloudkick reboot screen

Libcloud can already do a lot of basic management tasks with a growing list of providers.

infrastructure providers libcloud currently supports

But what if libcloud worked with the potentially hundreds of vCloud Express providers that will exist shortly?

infrastructure providers libcloud could support with vCloud Express interface

The way the libcloud project is working right now, there’s basically one rep from each provider helping to make an interface to libcloud.  With just a little bit of engineering time, VMware has the power to make an interface that would result in compatibility with 100’s (1000’s?) of providers.

So what are you waiting for, VMware? Join the libcloud list and get involved.  With a bit of effort you can some street cred for vCloud Express’s mission, without changing any of your technology, adding a ton of value to all your provider partners.

I like VMware stuff a lot, and write about them regularly, usually in a positive way, so I write this list of VMware Linux anti-patterns with only good intentions.

Lately I’ve been feeling a bit bummed by VMware’s deprecated Linux experience, and Windows-centric mentality. If VMware gets too Windows-centric, it’ll only be competing with Microsoft. I want VMware to do well against Microsoft! And I believe that to do so, it needs to deliver an experience that doesn’t marginalaize Linux users.

Here’s how VMWare can improve the Linux experience:

1. Improve the vmware-tools install on Linux guests. (All VMware products, all host OS’s)
   On a Windows guest, you run a binary (by clicking it!), and you’re done. On the Linux side, you run a binary (most likely via command-line), and then visually, you‘d think you were done. but you’re not. You installed it, now you configure it. Seriously, whenever I train or help users with this part, I feel guilty/embarrassed about how idiosyncratic it feels. The output of the rpm/install script never tells you “now you configure it.” Sure the docs do. But on Windows you don’t have to do all that. VMware, I won’t hold you responsible for the command-line parts, that’s (mostly) in Linux’s hands. But you could longterm do away with the configure, and short-term, announce at the end of the install that, “Now it’s time to configure.”
2. Make a Virtual Infrastructure client for Linux.
   You made one for Windows. I think you love Windows more than you love Linux. (And yes, I am aware of the web client. I’ll pretend you didn’t suggest that.)
3. VMware Converter is way more difficult with Linux than Windows.
   • The VMware Converter program itself only runs on Windows
   • Converting Linux physical-to-virtual VM’s is a more burdensome process for Linux guests, with more rules and hoops than Windows guests have.
4. I feel like you’re slowly taking away ssh/ “service console”/ file system access to your ESX-based products. You’ve only done this to 3i so far. And there is a workaround. But the vibe I get (I hope I’m wrong) is that you’re trying to wean us off of standards communications and file-system access to this stuff.
5. Give VMWare Server 2.0 a Linux client.
   I know you took away the non-web client from both Windows and Linux, but since Windows people can use the new VI client to access VMWare Server, I’m still counting this as a ding against Linux users.

Real talk.

(Screenshot of a Windows guest in a Mac OS X host, using VirtualBox)

Most Ubuntu users have long known about Virtualbox, the confusingly-versioned (they have an “open source” version, and a “full” (their word, not fine) version ) VMware Workstation-like tool. It’s been in Ubuntu repositories for a while, and I like it quite a bit, though it’s never displaced VMware Workstation in my life.

I’ve been especially excited about the fact that they have a beta version of VirtualBox for the Mac, making it so users on all major platforms can have a similar experience and trade virtual machines around.(Yeah, I know that VMware Fusion virtual machines are pretty much interchangeable with VMware Workstation/ VMware Player machines, but there is no free VMware product for Mac users, so I hate having to check ahead/download trials for users, etc).

In any case, Sun is buying Innotek, and I think it’s great. Let’s hope they don’t pour Java into it! (just kidding. kind of.) One thing that I think has hurt Sun is that it doens’t make consumer products. Something Microsoft benefits from, and now VMware, is that consumer behaviors drive corporate decisions. People achieve consumer comfort with a product, and extend the relationship at work. Sun’s Scott McNealy would just rail against Microsoft quality. It’s not always about quality! It’s about not wanting to venture into the unknown. Sun having an easy to use desktop product like VirtualBox is actually pretty unique for them, and a really great change. (Apologies if they make all sorts of other consumer apps I don’t know about.)

…wanted to upload a couple of screenshots from VMware Server 2.0. As I mentioned yesterday, VMware Server 2.0 beta update 1 only has a web-gui.
As you can see below, in a “read-only” way, this doesn’t interfere too much. When you actually start to interact with the page, it gets a little more annoying, and you can feel the chug of the thinking and the rendering. I’ll repeat that I appreciate that it isn’t a draining Java applet doing all of this on the client side. But it’s still pretty slow and painful. Aside from performance, the interface and navigation is inconsistent and confusing. I’ll try to post about that tomorrow.

Now below you can see the web-ui get even more inconvenient when you want “console.” By default, when you select a console view of a guest, you get only a partial view of it, ensconced in scrolly bars. You do have a fullscreen option, but nothing in between, let alone the “fit to screen” option available in the VMWare Server 1.x console client.

To be continued!

VMware Server 2.0 beta came out today, and I’ve had a couple of hours to play with it tonight. As suggested at VMworld, this is a really different product from VMware Server 1.x. Some changes good, some bad. I don’t have the same opinion that virtualization.info, that VMware Server is becoming a less relevant product, but I do agree that there’s something lackluster here.

VMware Server 1.x felt whole, right off the bat. With VMware Server 2.0, I have this “well, this is just the beta, surely there will be radical improvements” vibe.

While there are a million good and bad features here, what will save us both a lot of time is for you to know that as of now, VMware Server 2.x administration is totally web-based, and that is almost all you can think about or notice when you’re working with this tool. I will give to credit to VMware, they’ve enabled a lot of functionality (rebooting, creating VM’s, etc) on a web-client that somehow doesn’t involve a giant, slow Java applet. That said, there are many situations when you feel the web pain. The web page has to “think” and rebuild itself a lot. Console access requires a plugin in your browser (which kinda kills the whole “all-you-need-is-a-web-browser” spirit). People in the forums are missing the fit-to-screen feature you got with the “regular” console in VMware Server 1.x, as am I.

VMware is taking a big risk here. The next version of the (regular) VI client will be able to manage VMware Server guests, somewhat softening the blow of not otherwise having one. But this will only help people who have the (not free) VI. I see the “strategy” here… entice VMware Server users to jump up to VI. However I don’t believe it will work, and will actually turn people off of VMware.

Despite supporting more OS’s and architectures, I feel VMware Server 2.0 is “less” of a product than VMware Server 1.x.

To be continued.

The Oracle VM FAQ says it will be available for download today. It’s not.

Oracle VM is free, and will be available for download starting Wednesday, Nov. 14, 2007, at oracle.com/virtualization. Both Linux and Windows guests are supported.

It’s not on the Oracle software downloads page, either.
[update: It later showed up sometime by late-afternoon. At least there was a download button. When I went to download it, it made me give a page of registration info, and then said it'd take up to two days to "process" my info in compliance with "U.S. Export Administration Regulations and applicable export laws." BTW, I'm American, downloading from the U.S. I've never had this happen before.]

How much you want to bet that web-based Oracle VM management tool requires Java? I really want to be wrong about this, but I gotta play the odds. Less certain, but also likely: “works better in IE.”
Not that I want Oracle VM, their new confusingly Xen-based, partially open source, only-virtualization-environment they’ll officially support Oracle on, to be really be good anyway. I actually laughed when I listened to this keynote at Oracle OpenWorld today:

Virtualization is hot… people have been asking us… Oracle, what are you going to do with virtualization?

Yeah, kinda like how people keep asking, “Hey Coolio, when’s your next album coming out?” Like how they do on opposite day!

Like all Xen-based stuff, Oracle VM will only support Windows guests if you have hardware virtualization. Unlike most Xen-based stuff, they’re only supporting RHEL3, RHEL4 and RHEL5 Linux, and the wildly popular Oracle Enterprise Linux (if there’s any left!).

Just saw a tweet from VMware Fusion developer Ben Gertzfield:

VMware Fusion 1.1 and VMware Importer (Parallels to VMware) beta are out!

Looking over the release dates, it looks like this is the first post-Leopard release of VMware Fusion, so if you have Leopard, you especially want to grab this.

Then there’s VMware Importer, a new, beta tool for converting your Parallels guests to VMware (Fusion) guests. The docs say it works with Windows guests (Windows 2000, XP, 2003, and Vista), and that because enough info about your (virtual) hardware will change during the conversion process (just in terms of identifiers I assume, not actual profile), you’ll probably need to reactivate you Windows license upon conversion.

While we’re talking about Macs, VMware Fusion, and Ben Gertzfield, I might as well link to a pretty cool (video) Google TechTalk Ben gave about VMware Fusion. It’s about an hour, and the first 10 minutes are the standard talking points VMware gives about “it’s about apps,” etc, etc. But at about minute 11 it gets very interesting as Ben talks about how VMware approached certain Mac-specific problems.

That’s How I Roll!

• New word alert! Clogging: code blogging.
• Hot goss alert! HP might be shipping Ubuntu pc’s soon. You didn’t hear it from me.
• Matt Asay on Ubuntu’s underreported popularity in the enterprise
• A good piece on the Xen train that maybe never came.
• a good roundup of open mobile phone, OpenMoko, links (What, is there some other phone people have been talking about?)

(No they didn’t. No they did not just use C&C Music Factory in this video. They did. )

Aside from the ridic soundtrack, this video is compelling.

Yes, VMware Fusion is already available for free (in Beta). But this video shows features not currently available in the beta that you can download right now. Most notable is that VMware Fusion has responded to and one-upped Parallels Desktop’s ability to have each Windows application be its own little window in OS X, rather than have one “parent” window host all guest applications.

Parallels calls this “coherence.” VMware Fusion calls this “unity.” They’re pretty much the same, except that VMware Fusion can have each window appear individually in OS X’s Expose feature, something Parallels does not.

That said, Parallels is fully released, and VMware Fusion is not. And the unity feature doesn’t exist in the beta that’s out. Add to that the fact that VMware hasn’t announced how much/ if it will charge for VMware Fusion (its features are positioned between the free VMware Player, and $189 VMware Workstation).

Related: Comments from the Digg people.