Boston Linux & Unix (BLU) Home | Calendar | Mail Lists | List Archives | Desktop SIG | Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings
Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Blog | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU

BLU Discuss list archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Virtual machine

> From: discuss-bounces-mNDKBlG2WHs at [mailto:discuss-bounces-mNDKBlG2WHs at] On Behalf
> Of Rich Braun
> Ned, are your comments about VirtualBox 3.2.6 or later?  I've moved to
> version since OpenSuSE 11.3 came out a few months ago, and it's lightyears
> ahead of what I'd seen in the past.  

I agree that v3 is/was enormously better than v2.  My most recent experience
with virtualbox and/or vbox was 3.2.6 this past July.

> What I *love* about VirtualBox
> compared
> to others is the command-line utilities to manage virtual machines (the
GUI is
> pretty good too).  Also, its ease of installation is such that I don't
> any rival could improve on it.

I don't think ease of installation is an issue for any of them.  I think
installation is brainless for them all, except perhaps, somebody needs to
tell you for the first time, that you should install vmware tools, or the
equivalent for whichever tool you're using...  In fact, if you want an even
better experience, try parallels.  Optionally, it will fully automate the
entire process. You click "Create new machine," and it asks you to insert
the CD and answer a few questions...  And half an hour later, the OS is
fully installed, including the parallels equivalent of vmware tools, etc.

In virtualbox, I did have two laptops where the uninstall failed.  Some
terrible driver problem, that crashed the systems and made the OS unbootable
even in safe mode.  Forced me to restore the OS from backup.  So I don't
share your love for the virtualbox installer.

> VMware Inc gave up on their Linux desktop version (the one called "VMware
> Server") after terrible performance and installation problems with the 2.0

VMWare Server is and always was a terrible product.  Forget it.  You're
using the wrong product.  It's no wonder you think virtualbox is comparable,
or superior, if you're comparing it to VMWare Server.

In Windows or Linux, it is VMWare Workstation.  In OSX, it is VMWare Fusion,
or Parallels.  All of these are excellent products, which IMHO easily
outshine Virtualbox, except the fact that they're not free.

> As for performance, I don't see the issue.  One tip that I have to
> VirtualBox performance is this:

Wow, I can't believe how much you're saying I disagree with.

In fusion and workstation, I cannot detect any performance degradation as
compared to running on raw hardware.  Even when using a file container for
the guest, without using a direct partition or LUN.  But in virtualbox, disk
performance is poor enough to irritate me.  At least, as long as the virtual
disk is inside a file container.

> As for bugginess of the past, the bugs are fixed.  Period.  Haven't run

Oh yeah?

While your guest OS is running, try disconnecting your network adapter and
switching to a different network.  For example, switch from Wifi to wired on
the physical host, and get your guest OS to work with it.  Virtualbox can't
do this unless you reboot the guest.

... and ...

Just go into the network adapter configuration screen, and switch from tab
to tab.  For some reason, the screen doesn't refresh properly, and you end
up with weird graphics artifacts on the screen.  Buttons and controls
erroneously displayed on the 2nd tab just because they weren't erased from
the screen when you switched off the first tab, and stuff like that.  You
have to close and reopen the preferences window to get a fresh image of what
the menu is supposed to look like.

> under VMware Server with its clunky vSphere GUI would easily take 20-30

I repeat.  VMWare Server was never a competitor.

> Unless there is a specific feature you need that's present in some other
> virtualization manager but lacking in VirtualBox, I see no reason to look
> beyond the free version of VirtualBox.

Oh my god, I can't believe this is still getting longer.

Yes, there is a specific feature available in all the other hypervisors,
which is not available in virtualbox.
Ticket opened 3 years ago.

The only options you can select for hostkey in virtualbox are LeftAlt,
LeftCtrl, RightAlt, RightCtrl, Menu, PrntScrn, and maybe a few others.  I
have a laptop, so I don't have a PrintScreen button.  I use all those other
keys for their intended purposes, so none of them are acceptable to me.  In
fact, there is not a single key on my keyboard that I don't use.  I need a
combination key for hostkey.

I know it sounds like I don't love virtualbox.  That's not true.  I do love
virtualbox.  What you get for free is excellent, and satisfactory for anyone
who doesn't use it all day every day.  But the idea that it is side-by-side
comparable to the commercial alternatives (vmware, parallels) ...  I have to
object bigtime.  If you use it regularly, at least I personally cannot live
with virtualbox, and I need to pay for one of these others cuz they're

BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities.

Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS!

Boston Linux & Unix /