This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

How come no mention of the controversy surrounding Virtual Irons behavior towards and as part of the open source community? Jasonfward (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please elaborate? 212.183.121.31 (talk)

doesn't seem with the effort now that Oracle have killed the product.Jasonfward (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still need to add to the basics here. Does anyone have suggestions on additional sections? Jmecholsky (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the links provided and it doesn't appear anywhere that oracle "refuses" to support virtual iron customers with patches, updates and/or support. In fact the future of the product's support is hardly discussed at all. I believe those entries on this page is biased and I hope they are corrected. If they are not corrected in a timely fashion I will correct it in a few weeks or months. CupOfJava (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside the 3rd referenced article does talk about virtual iron support. Oracle merged and rebranded the product as Oracle VM and thus is a natural upgrade, patch, etc. If you take the fact that a product in name only "Virtual Iron" is killed off then you are correct but Oracle VM is the next upgrade of it just like Windows XP is an upgrade to Windows 2000. CupOfJava (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you source that the product has been renamed? All the information I've read support the view that the product was sumararilly stopped and that support is no longer offered, and that the way Oracle went about doing this has left the users of the product very much stuck, however I do agree "refuses" is too strong a statement, "is no longer" would be better Jasonfward (talk) 14:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This entry is appreciated but somewhat lacking in earlier information. As an ex-engineer of Katana Technology, the stealth-mode precursor company, it would be nice for someone in the know to include information on the decision to abandon the proprietary Katana MicroKernel paravirtualization in favor of the Xen open-source hypervisor. The later absorption by Oracle VM is more recent and more a matter of public record. The original work was clearly separated between open-source, mainstream Linux kernel activities for the Guest system and proprietary hypervisor work with no view into the GPL kernel. Dave Tuttle (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]