LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Newbie
User Name
Password
Linux - Newbie This Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question? If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 05-14-2009, 11:56 AM   #1
adolfo158
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jul 2007
Posts: 3

Rep: Reputation: 0
Lightbulb What Virtual machine to use?


What Virtual machine to use?


Hi:

I need to virtualize Fedora 10 on XP. Thus I can learn how to use alternative software to replace most of the windows software, and eventually have the setup the other way around; Windows virtualized within Linux

There is a host of virtualizing software available now days (not like in 1995 when I used Caldera Linux :-) and I would like to know what are the better and more stable ones since I cant play around with unnecessary hacking to make things work.


XEN, VIRTUAL BOX, Qemu, and SUN Virtual machine
:
Are they un-messy?

VMWARE Workstation. Is it that rock solid and straighforward compared to the Open Source Ones to pay the price?

VMPlayer: Looking at their site I could not tell for sure what I was getting. DIf I download VMPlayer and Fedora 10 Appliance; it means that I can have Fedora virtualized for free on XP?


Any help on this matter will be nuch apreciated

Adolfo
 
Old 05-14-2009, 12:55 PM   #2
eco
Member
 
Registered: May 2006
Location: BE
Distribution: Debian/Gentoo
Posts: 412

Rep: Reputation: 48
If you want to run other OSs under a Windows environment, I'd recommend VMWare Server.

Xen won't run under windows and Virtual Box is a pain when it comes to networking... it has been for me at least.

The VMWare Server is free and runs well although a bit bloated but it will do the job.

I'm sure there are a lot more available, I just wanted to comment on the ones I tried.
 
Old 05-14-2009, 03:46 PM   #3
pixellany
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Annapolis, MD
Distribution: Arch/XFCE
Posts: 17,802

Rep: Reputation: 738Reputation: 738Reputation: 738Reputation: 738Reputation: 738Reputation: 738Reputation: 738
Please post your thread (or post) in only one forum. Posting a single thread in the most relevant forum will make it easier for members to help you and will keep the discussion in one place.

Let's keep this one open---I will report the other one for deletion.
 
Old 05-14-2009, 04:50 PM   #4
ramram29
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Miami, Florida, USA
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 848
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 47
VirtualBox is the way to go. They just came out with version 2.2.2 which rocks. I'm running it with one of the latest kernels 2.6.29.2. VMWare does not run with all kernel versions and the install sucks real bad. I hate the new web version of VMWare 2.0 - it does not refresh and it takes a very long time to load the virtual machines. My second favorite would be Qemu.
 
Old 05-14-2009, 05:29 PM   #5
Quakeboy02
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2006
Distribution: Debian Squeeze 2.6.32.9 SMP AMD64
Posts: 3,275

Rep: Reputation: 126Reputation: 126
More recent versions of VirtualBox seem to have finally gotten the networking issue fixed.
 
Old 05-14-2009, 05:44 PM   #6
eco
Member
 
Registered: May 2006
Location: BE
Distribution: Debian/Gentoo
Posts: 412

Rep: Reputation: 48
Well if Virtual Box fixed the networking probs it is the best choice under windows. I'll have to give it another go!
I agree with ramram29, the new web interface is a pain in the new VMWare.
 
Old 05-14-2009, 06:09 PM   #7
ramram29
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Miami, Florida, USA
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 848
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 47
Another great feature of VirtualBox (WHICH I LOOOOVVVVEEEE) is seamless. You can run a Gnome taskbar and a Windows taskbar on the same desktop. Hence, you can run IE, Explorer, and anything you run on Windows, directly on your Gnome desktop - VMWare can kiss VirtualBox'es Arzz...
 
Old 05-14-2009, 06:19 PM   #8
forrestt
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Cary, NC, USA
Distribution: Fedora, Kubuntu, RedHat, CentOS, SuSe
Posts: 1,288

Rep: Reputation: 99
I'll have to give my support to VBox as well. I was a long time VMware user but the 2.0 felt like I was trying to type with boxing gloves on. I first stated using VBox about 6 mos ago and I don't think I will go back any time soon.

Forrest
 
Old 05-15-2009, 05:47 AM   #9
GazL
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Posts: 4,083
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 1527Reputation: 1527Reputation: 1527Reputation: 1527Reputation: 1527Reputation: 1527Reputation: 1527Reputation: 1527Reputation: 1527Reputation: 1527Reputation: 1527
I agree with Forrestt and the others. VMware dropped the ball with Server2. I absolutely hate its web browser based interface both in its use and in its concept. To be fair to it, it's interface is not intended for the desktop user and maybe Workstation is much better, but $200 is a lot to drop on a product when there's a free/open-source alternative.

The only other VM I've tried is VirtualBox, which is much nicer to use. The only worry I have about it is that last time I tried to run a OpenBSD guest all the programs were seg faulting all over the place, which suggests it's emulation isn't 100% yet. From what little research I did on the subject I believe I might have had more success if my processor included the VT instructions. Unfortunately, intel doesn't see fit to include them on all the processors in their lineup at the moment, and mine doesn't have them.

Last edited by GazL; 05-15-2009 at 05:48 AM.
 
Old 05-18-2009, 09:02 AM   #10
ramram29
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Miami, Florida, USA
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 848
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 47
Folks another great vm host and the grandfather of them all is QEMU. You should give it a try. The only complain I have about it is that extra steps need to be taken to do network bridging.
 
Old 05-18-2009, 09:03 AM   #11
linus72
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2009
Location: Gordonsville-AKA Mayberry-Virginia
Distribution: PocketWriter/MinimalX
Posts: 5,087

Rep: Reputation: 337Reputation: 337Reputation: 337Reputation: 337
Yep, Qemu's cool-only portable VM too that I know of...
 
Old 05-18-2009, 03:54 PM   #12
mostlyharmless
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2008
Distribution: Arch/Slackware/Knoppix
Posts: 1,761
Blog Entries: 14

Rep: Reputation: 267Reputation: 267Reputation: 267
Haven't tried VMWare 2, but VMWare 1.0.9 is still available for free. It is slightly faster than VirtualBox 2.1.4, which was the version I tested it against when I was deciding.

If vbox's networking is working better in version 2.2.2, that'd be nice, it wasn't as capable as VMware in the previous versions. I agree seamless mode is nice, as well as some other features it offers, but not at the speed expense.

Haven't tested QEMU in a recent version - it is not nearly as "polished" as Vbox and VMware and then there's the whole kqemu-accelerator hassle too. Don't know about it's USB support either.
 
Old 05-18-2009, 04:10 PM   #13
j1alu
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2009
Distribution: debian gnu/linux
Posts: 798

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
what are the problems with vbox-networking?
greetings
 
Old 05-18-2009, 04:28 PM   #14
mostlyharmless
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2008
Distribution: Arch/Slackware/Knoppix
Posts: 1,761
Blog Entries: 14

Rep: Reputation: 267Reputation: 267Reputation: 267
Well, when I was using it (though supposedly it is better now), you couldn't setup a virtual private net with your host machine, for one thing. You could use (1) a virtual private net with other VMs or use (2) Shared Folders (or whatever they call it) to connect to your host machine, or (3) bridged networking or (4) NAT. I also understand that NAT support was incomplete. VMware could do all that plus setup a virtual private network including your host. Of course, you could connect to VMware's virtual net with VBox, but then you'd be using both...

Could've been my error, I'm not a networking or a vm guru. For me, it mostly came down to a matter of speed, and VMware seemed faster than VirtualBox. I've got relatively old hardware, so that makes a difference for me; for all of you out there with muliple core, hardware virtualization hardware, VBox is probably a great choice. If and when I have to replace VMware server 1.0.9, I'll probably run my vmdks with Vbox.

Oh, one other thing: VirtualBox has no guest tools for Win98, VMware does. Kind of fun to play with the old OS sometimes...

Last edited by mostlyharmless; 05-18-2009 at 04:37 PM. Reason: clarification
 
Old 05-18-2009, 04:52 PM   #15
j1alu
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2009
Distribution: debian gnu/linux
Posts: 798

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
ok, mostlyharmless, thanks a lot
(the shared folder thingy works fine now, the rest i ain`t got no interest- at the moment :-)).
greetings
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
file sharing between a virtual machine and the host machine okok Linux - Networking 3 06-21-2013 01:42 AM
How to see the IP of xen virtual machine from the mother machine lakshmi4linux Linux - Newbie 3 04-29-2009 04:27 AM
Running virtual pc files in a virtual machine in linux ... preferably virtual box biharibong Linux - Software 4 01-21-2009 02:04 PM
more virtual machine help TentativeChaos Linux - Newbie 2 03-24-2008 01:15 AM
Virtual Machine honeybadger Debian 3 01-28-2008 01:39 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:37 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration