So I was thinking a bit more about virtualisation buzzwords after my discovery the other day.
“Virtualisation 1.0” appears to be the concept of virtualising physical hosts onto a defined set of infrastructure. Whether the VM farm is in-house or outsourced is largely irrelevent. What is important for buzzword compliance is that there is still a farm with limits, location etc.etc.
“Virtualisation 2.0” appears to be the concept of virtualising physical hosts onto “clouds”. The VM farm is provided by infrastructure-as-a-service and it’s implied that limits, location etc.etc. are non-issues because they are “someone else’s problem”.
The problem is that the possibilities in this space are not easily pigeon-holed into only two categories. It just does a disservice to whatever you are trying to describe to fall back on these kinds of buzzwords.