Reply #140: LMAO, you do NOT know what you're talking about.

[ET Awful]

Thanks for proving it yet again.

When you can show me how the environment you discuss is applicable to the situations I discussed, come back and talk to me.

Until then, all you're doing is talking shit.

As I said, what you discuss is a product that is not in anyway practical for real world applications for most businesses. You know that, you're just trying to pretend that since you don't have any comprehension of what I'm actually discussing you can try to change the subject to accusing me of promoting Microsoft (which I've never actually done, what I've done is pointed out that moving from Microsoft is not feasible for most companies).

I notice that once again, despite the fact that YOU are the one that asked which FDA regulations I was referring to,you have no willingness to actually approach the discussion with any honesty. What you've proven is that you aren't trying to discuss the real world as it applies to most businesses, but that your goal is to bash Microsoft.

See, what happened was this: You said "But IBM WHAAAAAAAA". I said "IBM's solution has no applicability to most businesses with already established systems, especially regulated systems. You said "You're just selling Microsoft WHAAAAAAA". I pointed you to regulations discussing exactly what I was talking about. You went all whiney (as expected) and tried to ignore the entire prior conversation.

What I gather from this is that (A) You have NOT worked in a regulated environment and have no concept of what it entails. (B) You have worked in large scale server environments which have no applicability to the majority of businesses). (C) You have a hate on for Microsoft to the point where your only point of reference is comical icons that were dropped more than a decade ago. (D) You have yet to explain (despite my listing of specific products) how any of them could be successfully implemented using the architecture you discuss.

Let me see if I can break it down in simple terms that someone like you can understand.

Regulated industries (Food, Drug, Financial, etc.) have very specific guidelines they must follow. These guidelines include the need for validation of all software systems used in production and development.

For decades, the majority of companies involved in those industries have used Windows based systems. So, as a consequence,the software they require has been developed and certified to operate only in Windows based environments.

As these systems came on line and were validated, most companies were forced, by compliance regulations and financial constraints, to continue using the software they already had.

The vast majority of them had no use for an IBM system with virtual server capabilities because it had no applicability whatsoever to the environments the operated in and no practical use.

As technology grew, these companies began discovering products like VMWare which could help them save on hardware costs by consolidating their already existing applications into compatible virtual environments, in many cases, without the need to completely requalify their systems.

As smaller companies with limited resources tried to do the same thing, they were very happy when they realized that the server OS they were already locked into (Windows Server) offered virtualization capabilities in it's base operating system.

Now, since these companies were trying to save money and could not possibly migrate their systems in any feasible way to your beloved IBM behemoth, they realized that the best practical solution was to use the Hyper-V solution, as it fit their business requirements and financial constraints extremely well.

Then people that live merely to hate Microsoft instead of to actually provide functional solutions to their clients began (as usual) engaging in hyperbolic and condescending discussions where they tried to paint anyone who points out the reality of day to day business as "selling" Microsoft products.

You're welcome to joint the real world now where most companies have no use for your beloved IBM virtualization (explaining why the majority of companies don't use it).