Username or EmailPassword
I see that VirtualBox has been ported to many platforms (including OS/2 before it moved to Sun). Is the FreeBSD platform that difficult to port to? I saw that there were forum posts regarding this but no output yet.
Wow, he was just asking a question, you don't have to bash him...
And, I think it's a legitimate question. Is there something design in FreeBSD that make the port difficult or something like that?
EDIT : ok, he has edited his post... Edited 2008-07-14 19:09 UTC
Yeah, edited before your post ;-)
Anyway, I respect companies that make make 2 clients, 3 is even better. Not too much commercial software runs on anything other than the big 3.
So, I'll just save my bashing for when someone asks "Where's the Haiku port"
Has anyone tried VMware Workstation on FreeBSD? Does it work? Is there any issues?
I think the problem is that there are a thousand little OSes out there, and for each app that gets ported to the three major platforms, Windows, Macintosh, and Linux/Unix, there are bound to be tons of requests for ports to all of the other OSes or variations of OSes out there. I don't think Sun owes it to FreeBSD or any other OS to port to them, but this is an Open Source project, and as a result, there may well be a port to >insertt OS name here< coming soon, or there may not be.
I have used OS/2, BeOS, and a couple of other OSes that often did not have the support of the Software Developement Community, and I know the feeling of wanting that cool piece of software to be ported, but the truth is we make a choice to use a platform we often have to put up with the consequences of that decision, or switch platforms.
"Yeah, but will it run Linux?"
I'm still waiting for a way to virtualise an existing, natively installed windows/Linux system. Before I switched to OS X (which runs office natively), I had 2 instances of the same windows sitting on my hard drive. One virtualbox image for MS Office, SPSS etc and one native install for games. It would be wonderful if this could be consolidated into one instance, imho, so I wouldn't have to maintain 2 separate windows's. Of course it would be even better if Virtualbox/VMWare would get fully hardware accelerated graphics. But unfortunately that's not about to happen.
VMware used to do this, in its "physical disk" mode. You had to create a second hardware profile in Windows to support the VMware "devices", but other than that it worked. I used it with a Win 2000 guest/physical partition and VMware somewhere around 4 something.
I haven't tried it with VMware 6 and Win XP or later.
I'm pretty sure both VMware Fusion and Parallels support using your Boot Camp partition in a VM. So you can either boot it natively, or run it virtualized.
VirtualBox supports loading the os from a physical drive, and you can do exactly this. Dealing with the different machine profiles, and remembering never to physically boot into a drive that has previously had its state saved in a vm can make this more aggravating than it at first sounds.
...but there are still a bunch of bugs and stability issues to work out.
I tried it on OSX, but it wasn't very stable and the video wouldn't work right on either Fedora or Ubuntu.
Once they work out the issues, I'd be happy to use it. Until then, I'll be using Fusion (which also isn't very stable and requires I reinstall it all the time).
It is great to have a Free alternative to VMware and Parallels.
Unfortunately, there are a few OSX specific problems with VirtualBox. For example, when the dock is on the side of the screen, the window keeps get repositioned underneath it making it impossible to get at. Sounds trivial, but when trying to actually use the thing on a daily basis it gets annoying very quickly.
To me this is a great example of a problem that so often befalls open source software. It is 99% complete but the missing 1% makes the software far more difficult to use.
Another example of this is the ('stable') Mac version of Audacity, which works well until you try to save, and then discover that whilst typing the filename, the keys are being interpreted by the window underneath and the file is being edited/played/resampled.
Sorry for the long and O.T. comment, but I just wish these programs would leave their perennial beta status. There is loads of great free software that is *so close* to being usable but lacks a few things to be perfect.
I don't have my dock on the side, and I'd rather not shell out for Parallells.
Would you recommend it?
(The use for it will be to do testing for websites in IE, and testing apps on Gnome/Linux and Windows.)
I tried the version that was current around late Jan early/Feb this year and it crashed and burned on Leopard. I just got a copy of Parallels instead, but free would have been nicer for sure!