We build a system for virtualization. We build it in Windows so we have pretty windows and a comfortable GUI to work in. In our system then, we must share our limited resources between the machines. We must operate a complete and bloated OS in order to get to our other OS's. Our base OS is running 40 processes such as the ATI graphics interface, the wireless keyboard and mouse program, it has Adobe Reader and Office primed for quick launch, Windows Update, Print monitor, LogMeIn, Blockbuster, Avast!, Weatherbug, and of course our Virtual Machine Manager. "Gladys! Bring me some more RAM; QUICK! So we're running a fully functional OS (or more than one) inside a fully functional, buggy, unstable OS. This can't end well...
The answer to this ticking time-bomb is a hypervisor. A hypervisor is a stable, tiny OS whose only job is to manage virtual machines and protect their right to communicate with the physical hardware. We can't watch movies on the hypervisor, or check stocks or the weather, we have to start one of the VMs to do that. The hypervisor is small and stable; unlikely to ever crash. If a VM crashes... restart it.
Oh, you thought that just because this is a political blog, I would turn this into an analogy, like:
Small entities with limited scope are most efficient for everyone involved. If the Federal government were a hypervisor as was the case in 1787, us VMs would thrive and prosper to an extent not seen since 1913. More of our limited resources would be available to us VMs since the government would only need to consume a tiny fraction. As it stands now, our Federal government is bloated, unstable, and sometimes does things that don't make any logical sense. Things like buying $400 hammers, supporting Mubarik and groups trying to oust him, and [indirectly] paying the Taliban so they will keep fighting our troops in Afghanistan.Well, I simply won't do it. Sometimes we need a break from politics.