OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/21283/Sun_Launches_VirtualBox_2_2 Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2013, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Sun, 26 May 2013 07:10:46 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif OSNews.com http://www.osnews.com Comment by Luminair http://www.osnews.com/thread?357744 http://www.osnews.com/thread?357744 lol how the f--k did this happen in the last 7 months

virtualbox version: size
1.6: 21mb
2.0: 32mb
2.1: 38mb
2.2: 63mb Thu, 09 Apr 2009 00:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Luminair) Comments RE: Comment by Luminair http://www.osnews.com/thread?357746 http://www.osnews.com/thread?357746 Haha good point... regardless this is an excellent project. Thu, 09 Apr 2009 00:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Dirge) Comments Windows installer is a combined 32/64-bit one http://www.osnews.com/thread?357749 http://www.osnews.com/thread?357749 If you read the 2.2 release notes, I believe that the Windows version is now a single .exe file containing both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions in its installer. This probably explains the large increase in size compared to 2.1, at least for the Windows version. Thu, 09 Apr 2009 00:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (rklrkl) Comments More virtual CPUs would be nice. http://www.osnews.com/thread?357754 http://www.osnews.com/thread?357754 I like VirtualBox. It's easy, small and it works. I just wonder when it will be possible to create virtual machines with more than one virtual cpu? Thu, 09 Apr 2009 01:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Marcin) Comments RE: More virtual CPUs would be nice. http://www.osnews.com/thread?357756 http://www.osnews.com/thread?357756 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. Thu, 09 Apr 2009 02:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (ssa2204) Comments Bad footprint http://www.osnews.com/thread?357764 http://www.osnews.com/thread?357764 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. Thu, 09 Apr 2009 04:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (3rdalbum) Comments RE: Windows installer is a combined 32/64-bit one http://www.osnews.com/thread?357766 http://www.osnews.com/thread?357766 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? Thu, 09 Apr 2009 05:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (puenktchen) Comments not 64-bit under osx http://www.osnews.com/thread?357770 http://www.osnews.com/thread?357770 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. Thu, 09 Apr 2009 07:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (puenktchen) Comments RE: Comment by Luminair http://www.osnews.com/thread?357773 http://www.osnews.com/thread?357773
lol how the f--k did this happen in the last 7 months

virtualbox version: size
1.6: 21mb
2.0: 32mb
2.1: 38mb
2.2: 63mb

Does it matter to you that the installation size increased? I dont get it. Whats so important to that? Thu, 09 Apr 2009 07:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (marcelkoopman) Comments great application! http://www.osnews.com/thread?357778 http://www.osnews.com/thread?357778 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! Thu, 09 Apr 2009 08:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (parentaladvisory) Comments RE: great application! http://www.osnews.com/thread?357779 http://www.osnews.com/thread?357779 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. Thu, 09 Apr 2009 08:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mindo) Comments Comment by parentaladvisory http://www.osnews.com/thread?357780 http://www.osnews.com/thread?357780 uhm.. is 64bit guest-support new in 2.2? because i've had the impression it was not supported in 2.1.2... at least 64bit windows guests on linux 64bit host... Thu, 09 Apr 2009 09:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (parentaladvisory) Comments RE: Comment by parentaladvisory http://www.osnews.com/thread?357787 http://www.osnews.com/thread?357787 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... Thu, 09 Apr 2009 11:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Phobos) Comments works great http://www.osnews.com/thread?357793 http://www.osnews.com/thread?357793 Just updated my VirtualBox to 2.2, installed new guest additions in the guest system and now I have stable and quite fast compositing with compiz (cube, wobbly etc all work as expected). Impressive! Thu, 09 Apr 2009 14:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (shiny) Comments RE: Comment by Luminair http://www.osnews.com/thread?357795 http://www.osnews.com/thread?357795 You should see VMware ;-). Thu, 09 Apr 2009 14:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (segedunum) Comments RE[2]: Comment by Luminair http://www.osnews.com/thread?357796 http://www.osnews.com/thread?357796 "Does it matter to you that the installation size increased? I dont get it. Whats so important to that?"

Exactly, who cares? It's not like people are hurting for drive space and size is somewhat proportional to functionality, at least in graphical applications. Thu, 09 Apr 2009 14:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sargek) Comments RE: works great http://www.osnews.com/thread?357803 http://www.osnews.com/thread?357803 Now install VirtualBox on your Guest and see if you can get compositing working. Would be interesting to see if you can nest OpenGL acceleration. Thu, 09 Apr 2009 15:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (FunkyELF) Comments DragonFly http://www.osnews.com/thread?357807 http://www.osnews.com/thread?357807 DragonFlyBSD works now! I was able to get 2.2 up and going Thu, 09 Apr 2009 15:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mdoverkil) Comments RE[2]: Windows installer is a combined 32/64-bit one http://www.osnews.com/thread?357816 http://www.osnews.com/thread?357816
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?


Because Linux fails to provide compatibility even between different versions of same distribution. Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (dvzt) Comments RE: Comment by Luminair http://www.osnews.com/thread?357855 http://www.osnews.com/thread?357855
lol how the f--k did this happen in the last 7 months

virtualbox version: size
1.6: 21mb
2.0: 32mb
2.1: 38mb
2.2: 63mb


My goodness, that's like half a cent of additional storage space!

This is an outrage! Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (zetsurin) Comments RE[2]: More virtual CPUs would be nice. http://www.osnews.com/thread?357861 http://www.osnews.com/thread?357861 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 Thu, 09 Apr 2009 19:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (-oblio-) Comments RE[2]: Comment by Luminair http://www.osnews.com/thread?358101 http://www.osnews.com/thread?358101 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! Sat, 11 Apr 2009 01:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (suryad) Comments RE[3]: More virtual CPUs would be nice. http://www.osnews.com/thread?358136 http://www.osnews.com/thread?358136
the network connection does not work (this might be a YMMV problem, though).


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. Sat, 11 Apr 2009 14:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Vanders) Comments RE[3]: Windows installer is a combined 32/64-bit one http://www.osnews.com/thread?358160 http://www.osnews.com/thread?358160
Because Linux fails to provide compatibility even between different versions of same distribution.


I assume you simply felt bored with the subject at hand and decided to start a flame war, right?

- Gilboa Sat, 11 Apr 2009 21:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (gilboa) Comments RE[4]: Windows installer is a combined 32/64-bit one http://www.osnews.com/thread?358249 http://www.osnews.com/thread?358249 Isnt it true? Ive heard this from other places.

Not provoking, I wonder? Is it false statement? Sun, 12 Apr 2009 10:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Kebabbert) Comments RE[5]: Windows installer is a combined 32/64-bit one http://www.osnews.com/thread?358335 http://www.osnews.com/thread?358335
Isnt it true? Ive heard this from other places.

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.

- GilboaEdited 2009-04-13 03:37 UTC Mon, 13 Apr 2009 03:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (gilboa) Comments RE[6]: Windows installer is a combined 32/64-bit one http://www.osnews.com/thread?358397 http://www.osnews.com/thread?358397 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. Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (wdeviers) Comments RE[7]: Windows installer is a combined 32/64-bit one http://www.osnews.com/thread?358403 http://www.osnews.com/thread?358403
Relevant? No. Important? Yes!


First thing first, it's important to you. Not me.
Second, Linux (and the most of the OSS world) is about openness, diversity, choice and innovation. Having a single DE, universal package management and a stable kernel ABI in-order to cater for needs of 3'rd part ISV's (such as myself) was never a part of this model. (Nor should it be)
Far worse (to you, that is), given the fact the what-you-call-Linux is actually a large number of OSS software packages (packed by the distribution) running on top of the (distribution-configured) Linux kernel, there's nothing -anyone- can do to force a stable Windows/OSX like model.

Last and not least, I'm not trying to defend Linux - far from it - the mere fact that somebody's pet project can challenge MS's 9B$-per-year R&D division is a living proof that this model works - and works well.
I'm just saying that if you require these things (single DE, universal package management [or none], stable kernel ABI, you are using the wrong OS.

- Gilboa Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (gilboa) Comments RE[7]: Windows installer is a combined 32/64-bit one http://www.osnews.com/thread?358406 http://www.osnews.com/thread?358406
Windows 'solves' the problem by doing extensive backwards compatibility.


Oh, and somehow, given the fact that my own (cross-platform) software is -forced- to ship with a number of -core- DLL's under Windows, mostly because the standard SDK DLL's are -completely- broken (depending on the exact release date of the Win2K3 SDK), calling what-you-have-just-said complete-bullshit will be a nothing short of a compliment.

- Gilboa Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (gilboa) Comments