VirtualBox 6.1
virtualbox.org
virtualbox.org
If you only use the open source parts you're okay, but it's a bit scary.
My perception of Oracle is that they'll do very underhanded, even criminal, acts to extract money from entities who have at one time used their software.
Happily, I have enough alternatives to VirtualBox to let me avoid that risk.
If you want to provision a server as a VM host, Proxmox free version is pretty good but you have to manually update it.
Maybe some little tweaks here and there to target specific ones in the vagrantfile, but otherwise I’ve found it to be largely a non issue to have different hypervisors, so long as you have a base box that supports all the ones you want to use (which is part of why my company builds base boxes - to have something reliable for client projects - either used as is, or where appropriate building on top of our box setup process to make customised boxes)
I'm not sure if there's a better option today, and/or for different host/guest combos.
So, steer clear of the Extension Pack.
I'm curious if anyone knows of a table summarizing these products and what their licensing would mean for a laptop you may take to work, etc?
As a bonus, virt-manager can connect to remote libvirt/QEMU instanced over SSH, making it easier to manage a small “farm”.
On Windows I find myself happy enough with Hyper-V too.
I really don’t miss virtualbox at all.
(for the record I've done some Linux KVM/Libvirt management of VMs on servers so I'm not entirely without a clue, but VBox runs everywhere I am and is my go-to for low value messing about, especially now that all that stuff has long ago fallen out of my head. If I had to do anything serious or non-interactive I'd not be looking at VirtualBox for it.)
VirtualBox, VMware and Parallels all offer much better shared folder options that are built in.
Virtualbox is one product, one package. That’s easy to sell, install, understand and google when you need help.
Virt-manager, libvirt, QEMU and kvm... Takes more time to understand, and googling it when you need help requires you to partially understand it. Kinda chicken and the egg.
Also with Vbox I get the VMs desktop scaling to my Vbox-window, as opposed to the other way around, which I get with QEMU. That still annoys me slightly.
Other than these somewhat small things qemu is the fantastic, much appreciation for your work!
Because I'm trying and I can't imagine how their OS could be more hostile toward me doing it...
It's pretty painless with VMWare Fusion.
Also
>Linux host: Drop PCI passthrough, the current code is too incomplete (cannot handle PCIe devices at all), i.e. not useful enough
does this affect usb drives and devices?
Virtualization core: Drop recompiler, i.e. running VMs now needs a CPU supporting hardware virtualization
I mean I trust that it's true, and I'd love to understand why :D
In other words, they should have taken this into account unless the personality thing was just for show.
The POSIX subsystem was replaced in Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 by "Windows Services for UNIX", (SFU) which is based in part on technology Microsoft acquired by buying Interix. SFU was removed from later versions of Windows 8 and Windows Server 2012. SFU is logically, though not formally, replaced by the Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) in the Windows 10 Anniversary Update and Windows Server 2016 Version 1709 respectively.
I agree that this was originally mostly for show since the customer base was very specific. That was a different time and place from now. I guess WSL started as an experiment to see how they could serve customers, was validated to some degree, and now they need to perfect it. A lot of related work on the Windows Console is now open source so I take that as a demonstration of how serious they are, but I don't expect it all to be open source. Maybe they'll surprise us.
Basically the block cache on NT exists between user space and the filesystem, not the filesystem and the block device. For metadata heavy ops (like open(), stat(), etc.) the regular cache isn't in play, and the little caches in the NTFS driver aren't nearly as smart as the regular cache layer. You could stick a cache between NTFS and the IO driver, but that would mean heavily changing the IFS interface, and heavily changing the NTFS driver itself. Unfortunately, the NTFS driver has been referred to as "a purple opium-fueled Victorian horror novel that uses global recursive locks and SEH [Structured Exception Handling] for flow control" by a kernel dev. I can't even imagine how scary adding a cache layer under it might be.
https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/announcing-wsl-2/
EDIT: More info at https://blogs.vmware.com/workstation/2019/08/workstation-hyp... and https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/Virtualization/VMware....
Workaround is not easy, hyper-v had a different feature set for networking and shared folders (not sure the latter is directly possible) as well as using different disk image formats.
“Added support for using Hyper-V as the fallback execution core on Windows host, to avoid inability to run VMs at the price of reduced performance“
Is that the workaround you’re looking for? It seems like it comes at a cost, but workarounds often do.
What would a bunch of extremely legacy technology--and this is a great example, between OS-supported virtualization in Windows and OS X getting good and virtualization solutions having already been just fine on Linux for a long time, VirtualBox hasn't had a meaningful reason to exist for going on five years now--and the worst reputation in the industry do to leapfrog Google Cloud? (If they're even actually "number 4" in the first place.)
From article:
- Implemented support for importing a virtual machine from Oracle Cloud Infrastructure - Extended support for exporting a virtual machine to Oracle Cloud Infrastructure, allowing the creation of multiple virtual machines without re-uploading. Also added option to export a VM to the cloud using the more efficient variant "paravirtialized", and to specify free-form tags for cloud images
So they don't seem to be very serious about multi-tenancy?
(Spectre and Meltdown are more or less considered the nails in the coffin of Xen para-virtualisation for multi-tenant environments).
The "massive enterprise company" I work for doesn't use Oracle IdM ...
It was used at the previous company I worked for, but it had endless problems and I think it was only bought as part of a very badly-run "buy an expensive 'enterprise content management platform and then not use it properly' initiative".
It's main feature seemed to be to import identities from LDAP servers into an Oracle database fronted by a very poorly performing non-compliant LDAP server (or, you could say, selling Oracle Database licenses).
OIM certainly has much more features, and just by the virtue of being the largest/supported by the largest tech company, tends to have the most features and integrations of any IdM solution, which is another reason it’s favored by large companies that actually need that scale. Other companies with smaller numbers of people or less need for edge-case integrations typically go with something more user-friendly like SailPoint (and others are still stuck on IdM solutions of yesteryear like some of MS’s old offerings).
Genuinely curious. As much as I enjoy bashing Oracle, I like learning new things about technology :-).
Competitors like SailPoint are typically more user friendly, easier to implement (as long as your implementation only integrates with common apps and doesn’t require deep customization) and comes from a generally friendlier software company, but it isn’t able to keep up performance/stability wise once you start moving above 100k-ish managed users.
The performance landscape is changing slightly now that other IdM providers are taking advantage of clouds as well for better scaling, but it’s taking some time for them to rearchitect applications to fully do so.