JF: Generally, ISVs do not care that the product is virtual or not. They only care what the underlying operating system is and how it interacts with the product.

KP: Since we are not currently running hardware virtualization I can only speculate on the reactions to this type of issue from the software vendors. But I do have strong thoughts before venturing down that path.

When we purchase and install software that is guaranteed to function properly on a specified "traditional" platform, we expect the software to perform as warranted.

As hardware virtualization (such as Hyper-V) becomes more mainstream we also expect the software vendors to accommodate the changes in technology. I can foresee making spec purchases for software against Platform X running on Platform Y. Therefore the software vendors will be responsible for testing their products on the "new" warranted virtualization platform combinations.

LinuxWorld: What are the vendor and open source scenes pushing that you don't want? What aren't they pushing that you do want?

WC: Vendors seem to be pushing Hyper-V without clearly defining it related to existing products. Also pushing products that may not be ready for production environments. We want products that are stable and not environment disruptive

JF: While there are many solutions available, currently all our virtualization needs are fulfilled.

KP: Virtualization. Period. Virtualization can bring many great efficiencies to the small business. In my honest opinion, virtualization is not pushed enough. And until virtualization becomes mainstream we will not see these efficiencies produce themselves as major budget influencers. Virtualization technologies, both Hyper-V and KVM, should be on the tip of every conversation around scalable network architecture and deployments.