On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 13:06:45 -0600 "L. V. Lammert" <[email protected]> wrote:
> At 04:01 AM 11/12/2010, Kevin Chadwick wrote: > > >If you insist and I don't know about the latest version, then vmware is > >likely much more reliable than virtualbox but still more problematic > >than a true install. There is a blog on the virtual box site by theo > >stating he can't believe any OS allows the problems virtualbox > >introduces(d). > > We did find out that VirtualBox must run on a hardware-capable > platform [AMD-3 or better] to successfully build an OBSD image, however. > > Lee > I've heard of people not even getting past the install even with a hardware virtualisation capable cpu. > VirtualBox might have problems, but at least it produces a working > install with a UI - VMWare seems to have so many variations that they > forgot to include a USABLE one without purchasing the expensive > management tools. > Yeah I used to edit the configs manually but things have changed there is now a more capable UI with the free vmware player than virtual box (ignoring the pretty nifty auto focus grab in virtualbox), the only missing thing being you need workstation for 3d support whereas virtualbox has free experimental 3d support. To me it's a bit like a blackberry, I'll play with it but would you trust one knowing the people who made it also made a server which can be rooted simply by sending an email with a pdf attached, it's a mail server for crying out loud and I thought exchange with admins using microsoul internet exploiter was bad. CESG and Obama should be ashamed for not publicising the changes that were insisted on and for approving/forcing it fullstop exacerbating the false sense of security.
