I'm familiar (for certain values of "familiar") with using Linux virtual
servers (Xen, UML) but I know nothing at all about Windows. 

A colleague has asked about running Windows in virtualisation
environments - is it possible to run a Windows server instance on a
server running Linux? And, will Microsoft licence terms permit this
anyway?

Thanks,

Daniele

D.M. Procida wrote:
> I'm familiar (for certain values of "familiar") with using Linux virtual
> servers (Xen, UML) but I know nothing at all about Windows. 

There's also VMware and VirtualBox.

> A colleague has asked about running Windows in virtualisation
> environments - is it possible to run a Windows server instance on a
> server running Linux? And, will Microsoft licence terms permit this
> anyway?

Yes and yes. MS has relented on allowing all versions of Vista to be run
in a virtual machine (like XP):
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/22/microsoft_virtualisation_vista/

D.M. Procida wrote:
> I'm familiar (for certain values of "familiar") with using Linux virtual
> servers (Xen, UML) but I know nothing at all about Windows. 
> 
> A colleague has asked about running Windows in virtualisation
> environments - is it possible to run a Windows server instance on a
> server running Linux? And, will Microsoft licence terms permit this
> anyway?
> 

Microsoft server systems will run under VMWare and other systems. 
Microsoft's license terms are usually published on their web site. The 
license situation is very complex so if you have any doubt you should 
get advice from a specialist; either a Microsoft partner or a lawyer.


-- 
bap@shrdlu.com

"D.M. Procida"  wrote in 
message 
news:1ifsz4i.1pgy8iw1kfxpf8N%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk...
> I'm familiar (for certain values of "familiar") with using Linux virtual
> servers (Xen, UML) but I know nothing at all about Windows.
>
> A colleague has asked about running Windows in virtualisation
> environments - is it possible to run a Windows server instance on a
> server running Linux? And, will Microsoft licence terms permit this
> anyway?
>

I run XP under qemu (http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/). This works for 
older processors that don't have the virtualisation hardware.

-- 
Geoff

Geoffrey Clements wrote:
> "D.M. Procida"  wrote in
> message
> news:1ifsz4i.1pgy8iw1kfxpf8N%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk...
>> I'm familiar (for certain values of "familiar") with using Linux
>> virtual servers (Xen, UML) but I know nothing at all about Windows.
>>
>> A colleague has asked about running Windows in virtualisation
>> environments - is it possible to run a Windows server instance on a
>> server running Linux? And, will Microsoft licence terms permit this
>> anyway?

To run well (fast) _and_ support versions of  windows you need to have a cpu 
which supprts those guests  on Xen type software (paravirtualized). This is 
a sort of cut down version of Linux which adds very little overhead when 
running so that the speed of the guest system is little effected.
For intel type machines all core 2 cpus have this support.

Geoffrey Clements  wrote:
> I run XP under qemu (http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/). This works for 
> older processors that don't have the virtualisation hardware.

Make sure you have the kernel support module (kqemu), otherwise it will
crawl. The kvm variant also works well for me (I have a core duo with
hardware virtualisation).

Chris

D.M. Procida wrote:

> I'm familiar (for certain values of "familiar") with using Linux virtual
> servers (Xen, UML) but I know nothing at all about Windows.
> 
> A colleague has asked about running Windows in virtualisation
> environments - is it possible to run a Windows server instance on a
> server running Linux? And, will Microsoft licence terms permit this
> anyway?

I ran Windows XP for a short time with VirtualBox, openSUSE 10.3, KDE
desktop. I have an Athlon 64 3200+ with 1 GB memory. I needed to close all
other programs to get it to run smoothly. I think a better computer would
be needed. It had an internet  connection but no sound, I did not try to
get sound working. It could read from my physical DVD-ROM drive. I did not
try to write a CD-ROM with XP. This would be how I would share data with
Linux, as I believe you have to pay for a version that will share data on
the hard drive.

I also installed WINDOWS 98, but it would not run properly, it would only
run in "Safe Mode". This is a restricted mode of operation wihout most of
the hardware working, as the drivers are not loaded.

On 22 Apr 2008, jasee@btinternet.com stated:
> To run well (fast) _and_ support versions of  windows you need to have a cpu 
> which supprts those guests  on Xen type software (paravirtualized). This is 
> a sort of cut down version of Linux which adds very little overhead when 

Xen is not a cut down version of Linux, sorry. It's free software,
interoperates with Linux, and shares some code with the xen arch in the
Linux kernel, but the hypervisor isn't Linux of any flavour.

-- 
`The rest is a tale of post and counter-post.' --- Ian Rawlings
                                                   describes USENET

"Nix"  wrote in message 
news:87ve29zm1h.fsf@hades.wkstn.nix...
> On 22 Apr 2008, jasee@btinternet.com stated:
>> To run well (fast) _and_ support versions of  windows you need to have a 
>> cpu
>> which supprts those guests  on Xen type software (paravirtualized). This 
>> is
>> a sort of cut down version of Linux which adds very little overhead when
>
> Xen is not a cut down version of Linux, sorry. It's free software,
> interoperates with Linux, and shares some code with the xen arch in the
> Linux kernel, but the hypervisor isn't Linux of any flavour.

Well I'm using Oracles vm which is (I believe) Xen based. It installs like 
Linux and it looks (horribly to me) like Linux seems to accept the linux 
commands and even uses lilo.

Arthur Buse wrote:
> I ran Windows XP for a short time with VirtualBox, openSUSE 10.3, KDE
> desktop. I have an Athlon 64 3200+ with 1 GB memory. I needed to close all
> other programs to get it to run smoothly. I think a better computer would
> be needed. 

I reckon your problems were due to memory requirements rather than a
slow computer. XP needs 512MB to run well and I've always found SUSe to
be a memory hog. Either adding more RAM or using a less demanding host
OS (e.g. using XFCE instead of KDE) would make a difference.

> It had an internet  connection but no sound, I did not try to
> get sound working. It could read from my physical DVD-ROM drive. I did not
> try to write a CD-ROM with XP. This would be how I would share data with
> Linux, as I believe you have to pay for a version that will share data on
> the hard drive.

I've not used the Linux version of VirtualBox, but on the Mac VB allows
you to share files between the client and host with the free version.
Note: you need to install the 'client tools' for this to work, though.

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:20:43 +0100, Chris wrote:

> I've not used the Linux version of VirtualBox, but on the Mac VB allows
> you to share files between the client and host with the free version.
> Note: you need to install the 'client tools' for this to work, though.

If networking works, surely you can use samba for that, anyway. I use it 
for sharing files between my linux system and the xp system i run in 
vmware on it.


-- 
http://SnapAndScribble.com/will

On 22 Apr 2008, jasee@btinternet.com verbalised:
> "Nix"  wrote in message 
> news:87ve29zm1h.fsf@hades.wkstn.nix...
>> Xen is not a cut down version of Linux, sorry. It's free software,
>> interoperates with Linux, and shares some code with the xen arch in the
>> Linux kernel, but the hypervisor isn't Linux of any flavour.
>
> Well I'm using Oracles vm which is (I believe) Xen based. It installs like 
> Linux and it looks (horribly to me) like Linux seems to accept the linux 
> commands and even uses lilo. 

Xen can be booted by LILO, yes. However, Linux runs *under* Xen: the Xen
hypervisor itself is not Linux in any way shape or form. (The thing
accepting Linux commands is a Linux instance running under the Xen
hypervisor.)

On 23 Apr 2008, Chris spake thusly:
>                XP needs 512MB to run well

I have to use XP at work and, well, that's not so. Not if you want to
run more than, say, three things at once, even if some of them aren't
doing anything at all: *especially* not if you run a virus scanner as
well (these are *really* hungry buggers these days: e.g. Sophos's eats
>150Mb on its own, and chews far more CPU time than anything else bar
bulk compilations.)

It's tolerable with 1Gb.

-- 
`If you are having a "ua luea luea le ua le" kind of day, I can only
 assume that you are doing no work due [to] incapacitating nausea caused 
 by numerous lazy demons.' --- Frossie

"Nix"  wrote in message 
news:878wz4gsib.fsf@hades.wkstn.nix...
> On 22 Apr 2008, jasee@btinternet.com verbalised:
>> "Nix"  wrote in message
>> news:87ve29zm1h.fsf@hades.wkstn.nix...
>>> Xen is not a cut down version of Linux, sorry. It's free software,
>>> interoperates with Linux, and shares some code with the xen arch in the
>>> Linux kernel, but the hypervisor isn't Linux of any flavour.
>>
>> Well I'm using Oracles vm which is (I believe) Xen based. It installs 
>> like
>> Linux and it looks (horribly to me) like Linux seems to accept the linux
>> commands and even uses lilo.
>
> Xen can be booted by LILO, yes. However, Linux runs *under* Xen: the Xen
> hypervisor itself is not Linux in any way shape or form. (The thing
> accepting Linux commands is a Linux instance running under the Xen
> hypervisor.)

I didn't mention the hypervisor.

AFAIK, though I'm not familiar with Xen itself, you can't install these 
types without installing what I call a special cut down version of Linux 
which it comes with. It'd be futile to do so anyway as that's what should 
make these types run faster and more efficiently than say, running windows 
on vmworkstation for Linux, which I also use, in which runs windows 
noticeable slower, in particular regarding disk access. .

Am Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:36:32 +0000 schrieb Arthur Buse:

> I ran Windows XP for a short time with VirtualBox, openSUSE 10.3, KDE
> desktop. I have an Athlon 64 3200+ with 1 GB memory. I needed to close
> all other programs to get it to run smoothly. I think a better computer
> would be needed. 

Works fine here on a Celeron 1300MHz with 1 GB under Kubuntu 8.04 (KDE 
3.5.9, 400 MB for the XP box). Did you install the VBox Guest Additions?

> It had an internet  connection but no sound, I did not
> try to get sound working. 

Also works here (out of the box with ALSA).

> It could read from my physical DVD-ROM drive.
> I did not try to write a CD-ROM with XP. This would be how I would share
> data with Linux, as I believe you have to pay for a version that will
> share data on the hard drive.

Definitely not, it is possible either via the "shared folders" option or 
using samba (both work here), even in the open source edition (OSE). The 
guest additions are necessary for the shared folders option to work.

Patrick

D.M. Procida wrote:

> I'm familiar (for certain values of "familiar") with using Linux virtual
> servers (Xen, UML) but I know nothing at all about Windows.
> 
> A colleague has asked about running Windows in virtualisation
> environments - is it possible to run a Windows server instance on a
> server running Linux? And, will Microsoft licence terms permit this
> anyway?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Daniele

Where would you find any advantage running a Winserver in a virtual machine
over running the Winserver directly from the PC?

If you need a Winserver, so run it. If you want a secured server, run a
Linux server. Virtualisation never helped getting a poor OS more secure...

Most servers in the world are running under Linux, BSD or any other Unix
flavour, so who needs to get things complicated?

Ciao @+