Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

VirtualBox 3.0 Released

virtualbox.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 39 posts

Re: VirtualBox 3.0 Released

#21

Post by gsergrtbnhrts »

neilc wrote: post #20
jodrellblank wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VirtualBox on the Mac is very nice. A respectably small download, an easy install, a pleasant GUI, it feels very polished and in my light use, both featureful and stable. Yes, try it.

Does anyone have any experience with how VirtualBox performance compares with VMWare?

There is a review here http://www.infoworld.com/d/virtualization/virtualization-sho...

Basically they are all pretty similar, if you use it in a serious environment there are probably more tools and consultants that will tune Vmware server for you, but for ordinary use it's probably a wash.

Re: VirtualBox 3.0 Released

#24

Post by fno »

I love VirtualBox so much. Thanks to Innotek for the free and open-source distribution. I do use the closed source version though.

If only they would support branching snapshopts. For example a main VM and then you could have one work tree and one webbrowsing tree. This would make using it for daily work even more appealing. Well, some day, I am sure.

Re: VirtualBox 3.0 Released

#25

Post by gcv »

jacquesm wrote: post #5

I've just finished comparing virtualbox and vmware, and not of my own volition. I needed to compare a bunch of different file system solutions for clustering (see post elsewhere) and after working with vmware for several days finally gave up (vmware server 2.0), and tried the same under virtualbox. Virtualbox did the job quietly without fuss or license keys, where vmware was nothing but a pita and eventually refused…

Have you (or anyone) compared VirtualBox to a desktop virtualization package, such as VMware Fusion? How does it stack up?

Re: VirtualBox 3.0 Released

#26

Post by jacquesm »

gcv wrote: post #25
jacquesm wrote: post #5

I've just finished comparing virtualbox and vmware, and not of my own volition. I needed to compare a bunch of different file system solutions for clustering (see post elsewhere) and after working with vmware for several days finally gave up (vmware server 2.0), and tried the same under virtualbox. Virtualbox did the job quietly without fuss or license keys, where vmware was nothing but a pita and eventually refused…

Have you (or anyone) compared VirtualBox to a desktop virtualization package, such as VMware Fusion? How does it stack up?

I've only used it for servers.

Re: VirtualBox 3.0 Released

#27

Post by fatdog789 »

w1ntermute wrote: post #16
gaius wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably when the developers are so rich they don't need money for food or rent.

Not to mention that there's nothing preventing a 3rd party from developing an open source patch implementing support for this very feature.

Sure there is: lack of expertise. Also, unfamiliarity with the code base. For people without programming experience, there's also the opportunity cost of learning a programming language.

The reason open source hasn't taken off with the general public is b/c every time a non-programmer suggests a genuinely useful feature (to non-programmers), the response is: "it's open source, program it yourself." Most often, the easier and cheaper path is to just buy the competing commercial program.

Re: VirtualBox 3.0 Released

#28

Post by jsz0 »

jacquesm wrote: post #5

I've just finished comparing virtualbox and vmware, and not of my own volition. I needed to compare a bunch of different file system solutions for clustering (see post elsewhere) and after working with vmware for several days finally gave up (vmware server 2.0), and tried the same under virtualbox. Virtualbox did the job quietly without fuss or license keys, where vmware was nothing but a pita and eventually refused…

Since this thread is becoming a VMWare hate session I'll add my gripes:

-No native VMWare infrastructure client for Linux (or OSX) -Very limited hardware support for ESX -Stupid restrictions on the free version of ESX to up-sell. (ie, no jumbo frames on iSCSI?)

It's no surprise to me VMWare has completely squandered their lead in virtualization. The actual end user experience of VMWare products has gone steadily down while the free/OSS and commercial competition has raised the bar. I don't have any major problems with VMWare's products from a technical standpoint but I'm seeing less reason to use them and deal with a lot of arbitrary marketing/licensing restrictions that just ends up making my life harder.

Re: VirtualBox 3.0 Released

#29

Post by w1ntermute »

fatdog789 wrote: post #27
w1ntermute wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention that there's nothing preventing a 3rd party from developing an open source patch implementing support for this very feature.

Sure there is: lack of expertise. Also, unfamiliarity with the code base. For people without programming experience, there's also the opportunity cost of learning a programming language. The reason open source hasn't taken off with the general public is b/c every time a non-programmer suggests a genuinely useful feature (to non-programmers), the response is: "it's open source, program it yourself." Most often, the ea…

I'm not really sure what your point is here…the feature is _already_ available in closed-source form. I was merely pointing out that its presence and that of an open source implementation are not mutually exclusive simply because the closed source version was developed by the same people who developed and released the source for the rest of VirtualBox.

Re: VirtualBox 3.0 Released

#30

Post by hyperbovine »

gcv wrote: post #25
jacquesm wrote: post #5

I've just finished comparing virtualbox and vmware, and not of my own volition. I needed to compare a bunch of different file system solutions for clustering (see post elsewhere) and after working with vmware for several days finally gave up (vmware server 2.0), and tried the same under virtualbox. Virtualbox did the job quietly without fuss or license keys, where vmware was nothing but a pita and eventually refused…

Have you (or anyone) compared VirtualBox to a desktop virtualization package, such as VMware Fusion? How does it stack up?

I have used VMWare Fusion for a couple of years now and have no complaints whatsoever. It's stable and not noticeably slower than using Boot Camp. USB pass-through and networking just work. You can even launch a Windows program directly from Finder. My one gripe--slow access times for the host-client file sharing interface--was fixed with 2.0.

I have never used any other VMWare product, or Virtual Box, but I thought I would add my $.02 since my experience seems to differ from most others here.

Post reply on HN