Talk:Virtualization

Virtual Systems vs. Operating Systems
Latching on to the previous comment about a new approach. Besides what it says, there seems to be some confusion about virtual systems, distributed systems, networks and operating systems. Operating systems are dependent on a special kind of operation, like using or not using hardware as a starting point. The PC world knows the bios type of systems, where the disk operating system depends on a pre-os process before the os can actually start. All PC systems always needs the constant presence of the bios to be operational. Other systems in the unix world ignores the bios and is a virtual (file) system from the start. On PC systems the first booting device's MBR only has to point to any point the OS-loader sits, then it will start a kernel that can do all the work of a bios (thereby bypassing the hardware based pre-os system). The comment that "the bios can handle any operating system" is a case in point. Virtualisation has no need of a bios; only on PC's. All needed from the bios on a PC by e.g. Linux is just the MBR. The bios only has to point to the first booting device (actually only set a sequence to boot), then Linux ignores the rest. The bios is only to get the hardware line itself up for the software to boot in PC systems. In Virtual systems the starting point can be from any readable device. This already started with the 1968 developed systems by Denis Ritchie and others at AT&T, long before the pseudo visualisations like VMWare that emulates a PC like hardware box. This article needs knowledge of mainframes using virtualisation (VM370 CP-CMS 1979) and 1970's Unix versions, which was there before any PC, Intel or MS existed. All this article describes is based on emulations of a hardware system, rather than virtualisation of hardware into a system that is independent of the hardware used. The example of OSX (also a nix based system called Darwin) on Win is actually the cart pulling the horses. MS can only create a emulated box as a file on it's own file system and run it like any other program. There is nothing virtual about that. Software virtualisation can only be real virtualisation if two OS’s are running parallel on a hardware system. For those interested in good material, take a look at “Operating Systems, Design and Implementation”, Andrew S Tannebaum et.al, Page 43ff. “Operating System Structure” & Page 46ff, “Virtual Machines”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.168.150.102 (talk)

Cloud Virtualization header is written like an advertisement
I'm afraid the Cloud Virtualisation header looks like its been written as an advertisement, and judging by the history, it seems that it has been like that from the start. It's all very recent; the last three edits to the page contain the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.244.47 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ Yes, it was quite frankly advertisement. Also it didn't have a proper source and it was redundant too. All of this exacerbated the real problem: It was patent nonsense. It was trying to explain "hardware virtualization as a service" but had little knowledge of the subject matter. 37.254.94.185 (talk) 08:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

"Real" computers
Two sections, Hardware virtualization and Containerization, refer to "real computers" without any further clarification. Putting real computer into the wiki search box takes you [via redirect] to a page about Real computation, with a description at the top saying "the theory of real computation deals with hypothetical computing machines using infinite-precision real numbers".

Can someone improve the text in the two sections I've named to clarify what is being indicated by the references to "real computers"? NoMatterTryAgain (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Virtualisation in computer
Want to know everything about virtualisation 129.0.125.54 (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)