[quote=fivemack;121414]Virtualisation is designed to address the fears of people, in companies large enough that the IT department has factions, that unreliable software written by faction 1 might bring down the machine running software written by faction 2.[/quote]
In my experience, the software vendors are to blame, not internal IT factions. These days every vendor requires that their application be on its own server for you to receive support. To be fair, I can understand their reasoning. It makes support easier when the entire system is known to be of a certain configuration without other applications having the possibility of interfering.

But the benefits of virtualization are tremendous. Being able to migrate running VMs from one host to another is awesome. I can do hardware maintenance during work hours instead of coming in on a weekend. Not to mention all the other nice things that commercial offerings like VMware offer.

[QUOTE=Matt;121430]In my experience, the software vendors are to blame, not internal IT factions. These days every vendor requires that their application be on its own server for you to receive support. To be fair, I can understand their reasoning. It makes support easier when the entire system is known to be of a certain configuration without other applications having the possibility of interfering.[/QUOTE]

The main software vendor to blame is M$. That is because of Windows and the security hole that it presents for all IT staffs.

I think that we should all go back to the "Multics" model. Although decades old, it is IMHO far superior to anything that MSFT has offered.

[QUOTE=rogue;121368]You would be surprised how often it is used in the business world. Typically virtualization is used to create a "black box". You allow someone, such as customer support from a vendor, into your network, but they are only allowed access via a virtual environment. The virtual environment is locked down and has the minimum software needed for support. You end up with a Windows environment within a Windows environment. The two environments cannot communicate directly with one another, not even copy and paste.[/QUOTE]

Understood, but in a paranoid environment there's always Citrix and Hummingbird already in that space.

[QUOTE=db597;121459]Understood, but in a paranoid environment there's always Citrix and Hummingbird already in that space.[/QUOTE]

I have heard the M$ has plans to buy Citrix (not the Citrix in this forum) so that they can kill it. M$ is very draconian in how it licenses virtual environments and the software run in them. I wouldn't be surprised if they purchased Citrix, then killed it, then introduce a patch to Windows that prevents Citrix from working without buying a new (and more expensive) license.

From my understanding, the M$ licensing agreement for Office frowns on installing it on a shared computer (or on a virtual) and wants companies to pay a license for each account on that computer even though only one person can use it at a time. If anyone on this forum is more familiar with licensing, feel free to correct any misunderstandings I have.

I haven't heard of Hummingbird.