With Oracle's rocky reputation around open source, I'm surprised that VirutalBox is still going strong and under active development. There doesn't seem to be any kind of commercial "enterprise version" that they license for big bucks... what is their incentive for keeping this thing going?
Virtual Box 5.1
11–20 of 65 posts
Re: Virtual Box 5.1
#12I don't see any security-related fixes. Is VBox that solid or am I missing something? I remember also looking at previous versions and not finding much...
Re: Virtual Box 5.1
#13If you're using Vagrant, stick to 5.0.24 until this issue is closed: https://github.com/mitchellh/vagrant/issues/7411
Does this have to do with just the version number? Or something more?
Re: Virtual Box 5.1
#14Has anyone done performance tests with different versions of VirtualBox? I often see entries in the changelog relating to "significantly improved performance".
I did a test for VMWare player verses Virtualbox and its no competition, VMWare is hands down a lot faster especially on anything GUI. I like what Virtualbox gives us but the performance is a problem.
which guest OS did you use for testing?
Re: Virtual Box 5.1
#15With Oracle's rocky reputation around open source, I'm surprised that VirutalBox is still going strong and under active development. There doesn't seem to be any kind of commercial "enterprise version" that they license for big bucks... what is their incentive for keeping this thing going?
Hush. Don't give them ideas.
Re: Virtual Box 5.1
#16With Oracle's rocky reputation around open source, I'm surprised that VirutalBox is still going strong and under active development. There doesn't seem to be any kind of commercial "enterprise version" that they license for big bucks... what is their incentive for keeping this thing going?
You have to buy Oracle VM VirtualBox (i.e. the enterprise version) to use the Oracle VM VirtualBox Extension Pack (USB 2.0+3.0 support) commercially.
Re: Virtual Box 5.1
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did a test for VMWare player verses Virtualbox and its no competition, VMWare is hands down a lot faster especially on anything GUI. I like what Virtualbox gives us but the performance is a problem.
I noticed the same thing. VMWare (at least in my experience) runs a GUI in Unity mode at pretty much the same speed as native for xubuntu guests. I/O performance over shared folders is really good in VMWare too. The only problem is VMWare has abandoned Linux guests in Unity mode for newer releases of VMWare, which likely means you'll be stuck on 7.x and running older guest versions until the end of time. For me, Virt…
VMware seems to have mostly abandoned Workstation. The team was fired. They even encourage you to no longer use their actually-working binary tools, instead telling you to use the often-broken-it-seems open source versions.
Fortunately for Windows hosts, the new Linux personality for NT might be good enough for dev work.
Still sucks for people that want to use VMs in a more serious way.
Re: Virtual Box 5.1
#18"... better support for Python 3". Why does VB need to better support a specific executable, namely python 3? Anyone have more technical details on this?
Re: Virtual Box 5.1
#19"... better support for Python 3". Why does VB need to better support a specific executable, namely python 3? Anyone have more technical details on this?
After searching a bit, there seems to be a Python API for controlling Virtual Box. Perhaps that is what is meant here.
Re: Virtual Box 5.1
#20"... better support for Python 3". Why does VB need to better support a specific executable, namely python 3? Anyone have more technical details on this?
VirtualBox supports scripting using python; for that, it provides a python module. Just like any other python library, it needs to specifically support py3 syntax, or errors may happen.