After receiving some guidance to this effect I checked the VMWare site
for Linux issues, apparently it's no slam dunk and indeed VMWare gets in
the way. I had mentioned I was using VMWare in my Debian post but the
bloke who answered happened not to know about Linux on VMWare.
Also, the VMWare site has info on Mandrake, Suse, red Hat, Corel but no
Debian. So although it likely presents reasonable virtual environment to
Linux guests, they might have missed stuff specific to Debian. Likewise
Debian has next to nothing on VMWare.
Just wanted to set the record straight after all my whining about the
Debian install.
kenny
clinisys
>>>>> "Kenny" == Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
Kenny> Also, the VMWare site has info on Mandrake, Suse, red Hat,
Kenny> Corel but no Debian. So although it likely presents
Kenny> reasonable virtual environment to Linux guests, they might
Kenny> have missed stuff specific to Debian. Likewise Debian has
Kenny> next to nothing on VMWare.
Your statements don't make a whole lot of sense to me, so let me
explain my experience with VMWare and you can decided if it's
appropriate for you.
My laptop dual-boots Red Hat Linux 7.2 and Windows XP Professional
Edition. I've set up a VMWare guest under XP such that it boots Linux
from the real hard drive (not a virtual disk). I would have used
Debian---it runs just fine under VMWare---except for the fact that its
device support is less than stellar (using an older kernel and an
older XFree86) and I didn't want to go through the hassle of rolling
my own kernels, dealing with -test or -unstable, etc., and anyway Red
Hat's "up2date" tool does mostly the right thing (though it's still
not quite as good as apt). Red Hat *just worked* on my laptop, with
minimum hassle.
Let me repeat this: There are no issues I'm aware of running Debian
GNU/Linux under VMWare. Linux is Linux is Linux, and the "only"
differences between distributions is the layout of the run-time
environment (e.g. what kernel, which glibc, which XFree86, config file
locations, packager, etc.).
Where you *might* run in to issues is installing the VMWare tools.
Their package is pretty naive, both in how/where it installs and how
it works. Installation by hand isn't too tough, you'll just need to
identify which config files need to change under VMWare and write the
appropriate hooks into your init scripts to detect VMWare and act
appropriately. In fact, I had to install the tools manually on Red
Hat Linux 7.2 because the tools assumed 6.2 or something ancient
(e.g. I needed to add kudzu and half a dozen other configuration files
to the switch list, and add code to switch files in
/etc/rc.d/rc.sysinit).
All that customization took me about an hour.
Now VMWare running on Linux (and with XP as my guest) is a different
matter entirely. I have not figured out how to use the Linux version
yet, and to be honest, it hasn't really been high on my list of
priorities (I use Windows more than I do Linux).
Kenny, if you have specific questions, please feel free to email me.
I'd be glad to help you with any issues you may have.
--
"We know for certain only when we know little. With knowlege, doubt
increases." - Goethe
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> Also, the VMWare site has info on Mandrake, Suse, red Hat, Corel but
> no Debian. So although it likely presents reasonable virtual
> environment to Linux guests, they might have missed stuff specific
> to Debian. Likewise Debian has next to nothing on VMWare.
I run debian woody on my laptop. I run two (and sometimes more;
though not at the same time) VMs: Win2K guest and Debian potato
guest. I did the networked install using the pcnet32 ethernet
driver. It all works fine. Keep in mind I haven't installed an X
server. I just launch it up and ssh in to it. I also run X
applications on it displayed on my normal host X desktop. So, X11 is
installed; just no server (and thus, no vmware-tools).
I recommend you move this discussion over to vmware.for-linux.general
on the nntp:news.vmware.com server.
--
(__) Doug Alcorn (···········@lathi.net http://www.lathi.net)
oo / PGP 02B3 1E26 BCF2 9AAF 93F1 61D7 450C B264 3E63 D543
|_/ If you're a capitalist and you have the best goods and they're
free, you don't have to proselytize, you just have to wait.
Doug Alcorn wrote:
>
> ...I did the networked install using the pcnet32 ethernet
> driver. It all works fine. Keep in mind I haven't installed an X
> server. I just launch it up and ssh in to it. I also run X
> applications on it displayed on my normal host X desktop. So, X11 is
> installed; just no server (and thus, no vmware-tools).
Cool. I have no idea what you guys are talking about!! :)
Throw me a frickin' bone people, I've been frozen for twenty years.
>
> I recommend you move this discussion over to vmware.for-linux.general
> on the nntp:news.vmware.com server.
thx for the lead on the v.f-l.g NG. i had whined about Debian here so I
retracted here, but i will tap that NG in the future if I wade back in
on Linux.
kenny
clinisys
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> Doug Alcorn wrote:
> > ...I did the networked install using the pcnet32 ethernet driver.
> > It all works fine. Keep in mind I haven't installed an X server.
> > I just launch it up and ssh in to it. I also run X applications
> > on it displayed on my normal host X desktop. So, X11 is
> > installed; just no server (and thus, no vmware-tools).
> Cool. I have no idea what you guys are talking about!! :)
>
> Throw me a frickin' bone people, I've been frozen for twenty years.
Suppose you've got an extra PC around somewhere. It's got a goodly
amount of RAM, and an Ethernet connection, and we really don't care if
it's got a screen attached.
-> Take that PC, and install Debian.
-> When you want to run Lisp on Linux, telnet/ssh over to it from your
Windows desktop machine.
-> If you want a graphical session, you might install something like
VNC on your Windows desktop machine.
That PC could sit _anywhere_. In a back room. Behind the furnace.
Doesn't much matter, so long as there's a 10Mbit wire (or better) to
let you get at it.
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string ····················@" "454aa"))
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/linux.html
"The chat program is in public domain. This is not the GNU public
license. If it breaks then you get to keep both pieces."
(Copyright notice for the chat program)
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 20:45:57 +0000, cbbrowne wrote:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>
> -> If you want a graphical session, you might install something like
> VNC on your Windows desktop machine.
>
> That PC could sit _anywhere_. In a back room. Behind the furnace.
> Doesn't much matter, so long as there's a 10Mbit wire (or better) to let
> you get at it.
Note that remote X works great for this purpose.. Get a copy of X-Win32
or eXceed and you're good to go. It's *far* faster than VNC (I use this
to run unix apps on my windows boxes constantly, and it's no different
than actually sitting at the console in my experience).
-Aaron
"Aaron Mathews" <········@xmission.com> writes:
> Note that remote X works great for this purpose.. Get a copy of X-Win32
> or eXceed and you're good to go. It's *far* faster than VNC (I use this
> to run unix apps on my windows boxes constantly, and it's no different
> than actually sitting at the console in my experience).
Except when the X server makes the whole OS die (which happens FAR FAR
less often on linux).
--
-> -/- - Rahul Jain - -\- <-
-> -\- http://linux.rice.edu/~rahul -=- ·················@usa.net -/- <-
-> -/- "I never could get the hang of Thursdays." - HHGTTG by DNA -\- <-
|--|--------|--------------|----|-------------|------|---------|-----|-|
Version 11.423.999.220020101.23.50110101.042
(c)1996-2000, All rights reserved. Disclaimer available upon request.
Rahul Jain <·····@sid-1129.sid.rice.edu> writes:
> "Aaron Mathews" <········@xmission.com> writes:
>
>
> > Note that remote X works great for this purpose.. Get a copy of X-Win32
> > or eXceed and you're good to go. It's *far* faster than VNC (I use this
> > to run unix apps on my windows boxes constantly, and it's no different
> > than actually sitting at the console in my experience).
>
> Except when the X server makes the whole OS die (which happens FAR FAR
> less often on linux).
>
Was this with eXceed? Just in defence, I use eXceed all day every day at work
on NT and it has *never* caused NT to crash. I find it an excellent product.
Barry.
Barry Wilkes <·······@cableinet.co.uk> writes:
> > Except when the X server makes the whole OS die (which happens FAR FAR
> > less often on linux).
> Was this with eXceed?
Yep.
> Just in defence, I use eXceed all day every day at work on NT and it
> has *never* caused NT to crash. I find it an excellent product.
This was on win2k, maybe eXceed wasn't quite ported to work with
2k. All I know is that by the end of my internship, I was just about
ready to install linux instead and not read any of my email (Exchange
server on which IT refused to enable POP, IMAP, or webmail).
--
-> -/- - Rahul Jain - -\- <-
-> -\- http://linux.rice.edu/~rahul -=- ·················@usa.net -/- <-
-> -/- "I never could get the hang of Thursdays." - HHGTTG by DNA -\- <-
|--|--------|--------------|----|-------------|------|---------|-----|-|
Version 11.423.999.220020101.23.50110101.042
(c)1996-2000, All rights reserved. Disclaimer available upon request.
Rahul Jain <·····@sid-1129.sid.rice.edu> wrote in message news:<··············@photino.sid.rice.edu>...
> This was on win2k, maybe eXceed wasn't quite ported to work with
> 2k. All I know is that by the end of my internship, I was just about
> ready to install linux instead and not read any of my email (Exchange
> server on which IT refused to enable POP, IMAP, or webmail).
It works OK with 2k. Well, it's kind of like everything to do with
windows: there are a subset of Windows 2k installations and a subset
of exceed installations for which it is stable. This subset changes
from time to time in ways that are not predictable, and which are
either truly random or deterministic but chaotic. To make this more
interesting, Windows includes special code (this is why it is so
large) which attempts to ensure that no two Windows 2k installations
are ever the same.
In fact this code has been a major problem for Microsoft: it's fairly
hard to ensure global uniqueness of installation in any interesting
way while ensuring that the system works well enough not to cause mass
migration to other systems (of course, there is a large amount of
marginal-stability code in windows whose purpose is to ensure just
this kind of just-acceptable-flakiness, and MS have large research
teams working on this). Previously, MS have attempted to help the
process along by making frequent, unnanounced, changes to the contents
of the CD distribution, but this is not really good enough - there
were documented, although rare, cases of two installations being
identical.
XP solves this problem in a very attractive - and unfortunatly widely
misundertood - way: global registration. XP systems want to be able to
register themselves with MS, and there has been a lot of entirely
unjustified upset at this. It is simply not the case that MS are
trying to track people or act in any kinf of Big Brother-like way: how
could anyone think such a thing of poor downtrodden MS? It's Sun and
Oracle that do *that* kind of thing. No the purpose is entirely
innocent: by having a single, global, registry of XP installations, it
is easy to ensure that every installation is unique and has its own
unique set of endearing unreliabilities and idiosyncracies which makes
MS producst so attactive.
It's a brilliant solution, I think: MS deserve the highest praise. In
fact I have written, several times, to Bill Gates expressing my
deepest admiration at this astonishingly simple and beautiful solution
to a problem widely rgarded as intractible. I'm not sure why he
hasn't replied: he is a busy man I suppose. Perhaps I should use a
different coloured crayon?
--tim
(now my personal windows idiosyncracy is that Office complains about
missing files, and tells me I need to reinstall, although it actually
works OK (except my Word files look slightly different on other copies
of Word). Reinstalling does not prevent the complaints, however.
This is genius: just annoying enough to keep my blood-pressure up, but
not quite enough to cause me to turn up in MS's lobby with automatic
weapons. To truly realise how clever this is you have to understand
that it is *regionalised*: I'm British, we don't have easy access to
firearms, so you can push that little bit harder. Trying this in US
versions of Windows would result in ugly, and very messy, events at MS
offices all over the place, which would not be good: Once you get that
much blood and brain-matter on your keyboard you can never really get
it out, the keys always tend to stick down. Or at least that's my
experience - this was with type 3 Sun keyboards though, which were a
lot better engineered than modern stuff - I guess your average modern
keyboard would just gum up altogether. On the other hand, modern
keyboards are really too light for beating someone's brains out with,
so maybe it's not a problem any more, I don't know.)