| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Sun's FOSS VirtualBox hits the sweet spot for Linux (ITWire)Sun's FOSS VirtualBox hits the sweet spot for Linux (ITWire)Posted Aug 12, 2008 16:09 UTC (Tue) by dowdle (subscriber, #659)Parent article: Sun's FOSS VirtualBox hits the sweet spot for Linux (ITWire)
To me where VirtualBox stands out, and perhaps this is what they were trying to say (who knows?)... is that VirtualBox is the only product that allows for fully virtualized machines without requiring CPU hardware support (VT)... that is FOSS. QEMU is nice but is emulation. I do realize that QEMU code is used by a number of the products. So, the line up of products that will do fully virtualized machines without VT include: 1) VMware, 2) Parallels, 3) VirtualBox, and 4) QEMU (very slow without kqemu module). Of the commercial products (perhaps a better word than "professional"), VirtualBox is the only one that offers a GPLed version... although as mentioned, it is a subset of the non-GPLed, commercial version. Oh, I forgot Win4Lin. It is commercial and does not offer a FOSS version.
(Log in to post comments)
Sun's FOSS VirtualBox hits the sweet spot for Linux (ITWire) Posted Aug 12, 2008 16:17 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] The thing about Virtualbox is that it's user friendly. It has a nice user interface and is generally pretty easy to do. For example the non-free one supports USB 2.0. You can use the GUI to add and remove USB devices on the fly. It supports automatically resizing the Windows desktop so that you can resize the VM display like any other desktop application. For the fully-free crowd KVM is probably the closest, but it completely lacks any sort of easy user interface. It's one of the things that they really need to work on. Xen, in comparison, isn't even on the map. It's much to much of a PITA to lift your OS into a hypervisor to get Xen working. It's totally unsuitable for the sort of work that Virtualbox is good at. Now for server work, that's different. Now I like KVM and I think that it can do it all. Were you don't have hardware to support KVM then Kqemu is pretty darn close-enough. But I can't comfortably tell my friends to ever use that software since I know they won't be able to get the sort of stuff they need working working.
Sun's FOSS VirtualBox hits the sweet spot for Linux (ITWire) Posted Aug 12, 2008 16:31 UTC (Tue) by marduk (subscriber, #3831) [Link] virt-manager
Sun's FOSS VirtualBox hits the sweet spot for Linux (ITWire) Posted Aug 12, 2008 17:58 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Yes. I know it exists. Still doesn't change anything. I am not talking about enterprise management of virtual machines, I am talking about somebody using it on their laptop and wanting to connect hardware and use Widnows on their Linux system fairly seamlessly. Two totally different kettle of fish.
Sun's FOSS VirtualBox hits the sweet spot for Linux (ITWire) Posted Aug 12, 2008 20:47 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] Virt-manager works for that use case for me just fine. Totally.
Sun's FOSS VirtualBox hits the sweet spot for Linux (ITWire) Posted Aug 12, 2008 21:17 UTC (Tue) by Los__D (subscriber, #15263) [Link] For me too... There's really not a big difference from configuring a new VM in i.e. VMware Workstation.
Sun's FOSS VirtualBox hits the sweet spot for Linux (ITWire) Posted Aug 12, 2008 17:33 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link] the only way to run an unmodified OS without chip support is with emulation. Qemu, virtualbox, and vmware all support this mode of operation. if you can take advantage of the support in recent chips for virtualization, you can do less emulation and gain a significant speed advantage. but to claim that virtualbox doesn't so emulation, doesn't require chip support, and can run unmodified OSs is incorrect.
|
|
||||||||||||