I was reading through a recent article about the new Java 7 release, which contradicts Oracle’s current support statement with respect to licensing. The License from Oracle exclusively states Java 7 is only supported on those hypervisors Oracle currently supports: Oracle VM, VirtualBox, Solaris Containers, and Solaris LDOMs except where noted. That last phrase is rather tricky, so where do we find such notes. Is the noted the support document stating that they support Oracle products within a VMware VM? Or is it somewhere else in the license? This leaves out all major hypervisors: Citrix, VMware, and Microsoft. If you cannot find a note saying things are supported, somewhere.
This implies quite a bit for the future of Java support within most PaaS environments being built today. In essence, they cannot upgrade to Java 7. Which means they may fall behind. This would impact OpenShift, Amazon, Google, CloudFoundry, SalesForce, and others.
We have various licensing issues to worry about today, some are:
Oracle Licensing which impacts Tier 1 applications
Watching VMware roll out vSphere was a bit surreal. VMware did a great job of explaining the mission of vSphere 5 (attack the next 60% – virtualize any application). VMware did a great job of positioning its cloud suite (vSphere 5 and all of the products announced along with it) as the suite of functionality needed to address that next 60% of un-virtualized workloads. In fact all of the analyst briefings that occurred before the actual launch focused upon these two elements as did the first 90% of the launch. And then…
In the past, virtualization architects and administrators were told the best way forward is to buy as much fast memory as they could afford as well as standardize on one set of boxes with as many CPUs as they dare use. With vRAM Pool licensing this type of open-ended RAM architecture will change as now I have to consider vRAM pools when I architect new cloud and virtual environments. So let’s look at this from existing virtual environments and then onto new virtual and cloud environments. How much a change will this be to how I architect things today, and how much of a change is there to my existing virtual environments? Is it a better decision to stay at vSphere 4? Or to switch hypervisors entirely?
Yesterday, Simon Bramfit vSphere 5 – Did VMware Misjudge its Licensing Changes? requested a VDI only version of vSphere and yesterday VMware responded with vSphere Desktop which for VDI removes the vRAM Entitlement barrier. I see this as progress and that VMware is listening. Unfortunately, this is for new purchases and you cannot convert existing vSphere licenses into vSphere Desktop licenses.
Here’s a quick challenge, name one vendor that didn’t make a change to product licensing without upsetting someone.
In the desktop virtualization world Citrix incurred the wrath of it’s XenDesktop customers when it introduced named user licensing with the introduction of Xendesktop 4 back in October 2009. Microsoft does it every time it goes near anything to do with desktop virtualization. And yesterday given all the noise in the Twitterverse you could be forgiven for thinking that with the launch of vSphere 5 it was VMware’s turn to drink for the cup of licensing ineptitude.
#VMware vSphere Simplifies IT for Small and Midsized Businesses > As simple as “You can’t afford it any more”
Well, as much fun as it is to express outrage at any vendor with the temerity to change its licensing mechanism, VMware’s new system isn’t as bad as many have made out. Now that the true impact of changes are beginning to be understood saner heads are starting to prevail.
Microsoft is making changes to its licensing policies to provide enterprise customers with a fast track to the cloud. The changes dubbed “License Mobility” announced at the Microsoft Hosting Summit in March this year,will move will allow customers with Software Assurance to move their applications to a cloud services provider without paying a premium for the added flexibility this will bring.
The changes which are due to take effect on July 1 this year should benefit Microsoft, its customers, and cloud service providers equally.
The announcement was doubtless welcomed by iPad owning View users and brings VMware in line with the competition. Citirix and Quest both have an iPad client for their respective solutions; with a number of vendors, including iTap, Jaadu, Wyse providing RDP clients via Apple’s Appstore.
While some vendors have a charge for their iPad client – VMware has followed in the practice of Citrix and Quest and made their client free for download.
Yet, there is no such thing as a free lunch. While there may be no charge for the client app, is there a cost implication to the business? And of course, I’ve written “iPad” but as the iPhone loses to ground to the wealth of Android devices, it would be fair to say that the question of “what-is-the-cost-of-connecting-to-your-services-with-a-new-generation-mobile-thing” covers a range of devices that are being brought into the work place: not only the cool tablet de jour courtesy of Mr Ive, but the ever more popular Android smartphones and tablet devices such as the Motorola Xoom or the Samsung Galaxy Tab.
There may be an executive clamor to introduce these devices, the cost of installing the relevant client may appear to be nothing and the services of IT may not be needed to perform the installation – but, what licenses need to be available to allow access using these new kids on the block?
How free is a free VDI client on a tablet or a smartphone?