Every now and again we use this blog to correct inaccuracies in the public domain. Mostly innocent errors at media outlets. And usually I wouldn't comment on opinion pieces at Linux-Watch because the rhetorical debate would be fruitless. You know, "taste great" versus "less filling" sort of thing. But one of our pals at Linux-Watch botched some facts while he was predicting doom and gloom for Windows Server, and the article was picked up by reputable media site eWeek. I'm not asking reporters (with editors) to spare the rod. Your critical eye helps us identify areas of improvement. But how about getting the facts right?
In this case, we're talking about virtualization licensing. It's not a simple topic, and virtualization is certainly causing Microsoft and the industry as a whole to review its current licensing policies. When you combine the onset of virtualization with the introduction of multi-core processors and mainstream x64 computing, there's a tremendous amount of new capabilities available to you. But also new licensing models to understand that aren't uniform across the industry.
So if eWeek editors want to get the facts straight on the timing and details of Microsoft's virtualization licensing policies, they should start with Ward's posting last October. Then they can read the announcement. And if there's more column inches left in the revised balanced article, then you can give a shout out to IDC's reports, the updated licensing for Datacenter Edition – in addition to Peter Galli's article.