Linux Integration Services 3.1 for Hyper-V

Linux Integration Services 3.1 for Hyper-V

Rate This
  • Comments 3


Last week we released an update for the Linux Integration Services for Hyper-V.  You can download the 3.1 release here: http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=26837

Key details are that this release supports the following Linux distributions:

  • Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.0 and 6.1 x86 and x64 (Up to 4 vCPU)
  • CentOS 6.0 x86 and x64 (Up to 4 vCPU)

It also provides support for the “KVP” feature of Hyper-V (I have yet to play with this under Linux, and am hoping to soon, but you can read about KVPs in a number of posts that I have made in the past).

Finally this release includes RPM based installers, which is certainly convenient.

One extra thing to note – if you are running SLES 10 SP3 / 11, or RHEL 5.2 / 5.3 / 5.4 / 5.5 you will need to continue to use the previous release of the Linux Integration Services – which can be downloaded from here: http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=24247

Cheers,
Ben

Leave a Comment
  • Please add 5 and 6 and type the answer here:
  • Post
  • Hi Ben,

    Isn't there any non-rpm (source code distribution)of the v3.1 available as well for [trying] compilation on other distros?

  • Hi Ali -

    The ISO includes SRPMs - or you can always grab the code yourself from the latest kernel code.

    Cheers,

    Ben

  • First, I want to be clear that I am grateful for any/every update of this software. However, I am also disappointed in the quality of this release.

    Would it really be so hard to post a public key file at a https://microsoft.com URL, that we could import and use to validate the RPMs properly? Would it really be so hard to include tarballs in addition to SRPMs (MUCH more convenient for users of non-RH distros than pulling from kernel source repositories)? Would it really be so hard to name the ISO with 3.1 instead of having a ISO named 3.0 containing a PDF describing 3.1 but explicitly instructing us to mount the 3.0 ISO (on page 7, proving that this confusion was pre-meditated and intentional)? Would it really be so hard for page 2 of the PDF to say (c) 2011 instead of 2009, perhaps weakening Microsoft's copyright due to fraudulent notice?

    Would it really be so hard to highlight the renaming from "Services" to "Components"? Yes, it makes the name consistent with the equivalent for Windows guests, but this is not an easily "discoverable" change for customers. Ordinary mortals searching for the successor to "Components" 2.1 aren't going to find "Services" 3.1 (and even if they do, they'll be downloading an ISO named IC instead of IS). PLEASE READ CAREFULLY THE FIRST TWO SENTENCES UNDER "OVERVIEW" ON THE 3.1 DOWNLOAD PAGE. The name actually changed between sentences! What kind of drugs do you need to be on, for any of this to seem professional?

    Sure, it's all nit-picky/minor/cosmetic stuff, but collectively it feels like a slap in the face of customers, like Microsoft just doesn't give a darn. Even one-man, part-time OSS projects can get this stuff right. Whoever signed off on this RTW should be ashamed. Innotek and Connectix had PRIDE in their work; may they rest in peace.

Page 1 of 1 (3 items)