Sun has launched VirtualBox 2.2. Sun is adding support for the Open Virtualization Format standard to its VirtualBox virtualization software. With the OVF standard incorporated into VirtualBox 2.2, users can not only build virtual machines, but also export them from a development situation and import them into a production environment. Sun also is adding greater hypervisor optimization, 3D graphics acceleration for Linux and Solaris applications, and support for Apple's upcoming 64-bit Snow Leopard platform.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2007-03-30
Member since:2005-07-14
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2007-07-27
Windows (32-bit/64-bit x86) - one download of 63MB
Solaris 10 5/08 and OpenSolaris (32-bit/64-bit x86) - one download of 72MB
Mac OS X (32-bit/64-bit x86) - one download of 44MB
Linux - no less than 40 different downloads for x86, amd64, x86-64, ranging from 29MB to 44MB
why the hell?
Member since:2008-10-23
Solaris 10 5/08 and OpenSolaris (32-bit/64-bit x86) - one download of 72MB
Mac OS X (32-bit/64-bit x86) - one download of 44MB
Linux - no less than 40 different downloads for x86, amd64, x86-64, ranging from 29MB to 44MB
why the hell?
Because Linux fails to provide compatibility even between different versions of same distribution.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2007-07-27
Member since:2005-07-06
Not provoking, I wonder? Is it false statement?
Is it false? Nope.
Is it relevant? I greatly doubt it.
If you're a Ubuntu/Fedora/SUSE/Debian/etc user, downloading binary applications off some random Internet website isn't something you normally do (It's considered -very- harmful)
E.g. I've got ~2200 packages on this F10 machine, and one binary application (Google Earth).
Another example of such statement is:
"Windows doesn't run (native) Linux applications!"
Is it true? Sure.
Is it relevant to Windows user base? Nope.
- Gilboa
Edited 2009-04-13 03:37 UTC
Member since:2008-08-01
Relevant? No. Important? Yes! Stop being a Linux apologist just because you like it. I, too, like Linux. I use it every day on my two primary desktops (work & home) and have been for 13 years. It doesn't help anybody when somebody voices a valid criticism ("Linux has a problem with software because there is no compatability, even between releases"), which is clearly true, and the Apologist (or Zealot) responds with "So! If you used it the way you're supposed to, it wouldn't be a problem."
Saying that you have to stay within the Ubuntu or Debian apt tree is exactly the same as a manufacturer saying you can't add any third-party parts or the product will explode. If you bought a motor cycle and couldn't use gas branded by another company because "it's considered bad", wouldn't that irk you a bit?
Linux is the last, crotchety old hold-out in a failing model in this regard. I love apt, because it's clearly the best thing we have going for software installation. But it doesn't make it the Correct way of doing software installation. OSX solved this problem by doing some magic in the background for software installation; Windows 'solves' the problem by doing extensive backwards compatibility.
Everybody is gung-ho about Choice in Linux, and their argument is that having multiple software installation systems is a product of Choice. Bullshit; all it does it take positive developer time and waste it duplicating effort. If you spend your entire life in Debian and then move to a RedHat machine, you will have *no idea* how to install software for the first 10-15 minutes that you use it, even as a professional user. That's horrible, pathetic, and not worth apologizing for.
And THAT is why you shouldn't dismiss the original comment. Calling Linux out on it's crappy software management is important, or it'll never get any better.
Member since:2007-03-23
Member since:2007-07-12
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-06-13
Member since:2005-07-09
I personally am interested in the size of an application's installer.
I personally do not approve of bloat at all. Also it is quite interesting to understand what all went in there to result in such a large increase in size.
That is one of the reasons why I moved from VMWare to Virtualbox. Size, performance and also the fact that after I uninstalled Vmware player to try and install the newer version of the player, my machine started acting funny probably because the software during the uninstall process did not clean up after itself.
Another reason why I moved from VMware to Virtualbox is performance. VB is so much faster. Case in point, a vmware image of windows xp is used on my work machine where I have Linux as the host OS. So this machine is quite old and man XP in the vm is as slow as molasses. You move the mouse and it takes literally a minute for it to move haha. Could be this machine is a pos and only has 256 mb of ram but then when I installed virtualbox and ran that same image through it, I could actually move the mouse in real time!
Member since:
2007-06-06
Member since:2006-04-22
I just started using it to try out, it is easy, small, and very efficient. My only problem is the network component is not functioning (I have no access). Other than that this is a very good application.
I downloaded the latest version of VMWare Server a while back, and good god what a hunking piece of *#&@ that became. I think I used more memory just on the VMWare components than the actual first VM image I tried. Gladly I was able to remove and install the last release prior to the brilliant idea of using a web browser..Which because of my dissatisfaction I came across Virtualbox 2.2. So I guess a big thanks to VMWare for motivating me to look at other VM applications.
Member since:2008-05-27
It is easy, small, efficient. Oh, the irony!
Yet, it can create only single processor virtual machines and the network connection does not work (this might be a YMMV problem, though).
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000020.html
Member since:2005-07-06
It is, yes. I've never had an issue with networking from a VirtualBox guest, and I assume it would be a high-priority bug if it didn't work across the board or for a high percentage of users.
If you need a virtual machine with multiple CPUs then use Qemu.
Member since:
2008-05-26
Firstly, I don't remember the Virtualbox download being anywhere near 20 megabytes... more like 10 megs for 1.6; bear in mind that I'm a Linux user.
If you think the current 63 megabytes is bad, you should have taken a look at VMWare Server. Back when Virtualbox was at version 1.6, the VmWare Server download was 120 megabytes.
Member since:
2007-07-27
virtual box might run under snow leopard (and why not?), but it will certainly only run as 32-bit process, as it doesn't contain any 64-bit binaries. which would also work in leopard - and it doesn't run as 64-bit process in leopard, even if it is emulating a 64-bit vm. i just tried it.
Member since:
2006-12-18
Use VB on an almost dailybasis at home to take care of my ties to windows...
Works like a charm! Two things that would be neet to have tho is 1) beeing able to allocate processor cores in more detail 2) support for 64bit guests.
Maybe beeing able to give guest more that 128mb of video ram...
Anywho, I know what I will be doing when I get home tonight!
Member since:2006-02-17
Several cores would be nice.
64 bits guest already supported and who needs 128MB of video ram in a virtual machine? Maybe when the 3D driver is good enough to play any recent game or something like autocad/maya/etc, before that i see no need to more than 16/32MB.
Just my 2c.
Member since:
2006-12-18
Member since:2008-04-30
If you check the changelog, you will find that 64 bit guests have been supported since 2.0.0 http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Changelog-2.0 (that's almost 8 months now)
If you check the manual, you will find how to do it... x-VT/AMDv enabled on 64 bit host...
Member since:
2005-08-09
Member since:2006-07-26
