Its really frustrating to watch as Docker becomes popular and they claim it is a new innovative idea. IBM MVS has had this technology for 40 years and back in 2006 when Microsoft purchased Boston-based Softricity, I went over to lobby them to sign on for my idea of building our app management stack *ABOVE* the hypervisor instead of betting on Hyper-V only. My argument was that we could allow customers to choose whether to do full virtualization or OS virtualization at deployment time and thus trade off the isolation vs. performance in a nice seamless way. Softricity had been making most of their money from their Server OS virtualization so it was there for us to ship and improve, but Microsoft put that on ice and instead focused solely on adapting the Softricity technology to be used for client virtualization (it became App-v). So once again, we shot ourselves in the foot due to unimaginative management decisions. At least the shared clustered filesystem we wanted did eventually ship and formed the basis for the storage technology used by Hyper-V Live Migration. Originally I wanted it to be used for both (OS virtualization with lower isolation and high performance *plus* full virtualization with high isolation and the resulting lower performance). Now we get to play catch up. Sigh nytimes/2015/01/13/business/a-small-software-company-sees-a-future-in-containers-of-code.html?hpw&rref=technology&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well
Posted on: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 02:31:43 +0000