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

Virtual Box 5.1

virtualbox.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 65 posts

Re: Virtual Box 5.1

#41

Post by cpr »

FireBeyond wrote: post #36
StevePerkins wrote: post #11

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?

It's also made even uglier by the fact that VMware has discontinued Fusion, and Parallels (at least in the Vagrant, etc, ecosystem) has always been a second class citizen). Not to mention that Parallels licensing is a pain. I understand license key activation as at times a necessary evil but in cases where you are developing a product for use primarily by developers who may frequently re-install their computer, could…

Hadn't heard about Fusion. Not exactly discontinued, but the signs don't look good, either:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/01/27/vmware_fusion_and_wo...

Agree about Docker using built-in macOS virtualization. Quite hopeful.

Re: Virtual Box 5.1

#42

Post by Scarbutt »

FireBeyond wrote: post #36
StevePerkins wrote: post #11

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?

It's also made even uglier by the fact that VMware has discontinued Fusion, and Parallels (at least in the Vagrant, etc, ecosystem) has always been a second class citizen). Not to mention that Parallels licensing is a pain. I understand license key activation as at times a necessary evil but in cases where you are developing a product for use primarily by developers who may frequently re-install their computer, could…

From where do you get vmware fusion was discontinued?

Re: Virtual Box 5.1

#43

Post by berns »

StevePerkins wrote: post #11

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?

Interesting, I searched for the "enterprise version" on shop.oracle.com. It's listed at USD 1,000 / socket.

Re: Virtual Box 5.1

#44

Post by andrewf »

FireBeyond wrote: post #36
StevePerkins wrote: post #11

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?

It's also made even uglier by the fact that VMware has discontinued Fusion, and Parallels (at least in the Vagrant, etc, ecosystem) has always been a second class citizen). Not to mention that Parallels licensing is a pain. I understand license key activation as at times a necessary evil but in cases where you are developing a product for use primarily by developers who may frequently re-install their computer, could…

Veertu exists now - it's in the app store, and uses Apple's Hypervisor.framework (just like Docker for Mac). I purchased it because having Apple supply the in-kernel virtualization component strikes me at the Right Thing (tm). Veertu runs a 2D Windows desktop fine, but it does seem slower - I guess they haven't matured a full stack of accelerated virtual graphics drivers etc.

Re: Virtual Box 5.1

#45

Post by kgwgk »

Scarbutt wrote: post #42
FireBeyond wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also made even uglier by the fact that VMware has discontinued Fusion, and Parallels (at least in the Vagrant, etc, ecosystem) has always been a second class citizen). Not to mention that Parallels licensing is a pain. I understand license key activation as at times a necessary evil but in cases where you are developing a product for use primarily by developers who may frequently re-install their computer, could…

From where do you get vmware fusion was discontinued?

At least the people behind it is gone. I was discussed in HN at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10978672

Re: Virtual Box 5.1

#46

Post by nickjj »

mkesper wrote: post #30
nickjj wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Wasn't 64 in 64 a config issue? Enable VT-X?

Nope. Issue persists with it enabled too. To my knowledge it's a technology related issue with VBox and how it runs the VM.

Re: Virtual Box 5.1

#47

Post by rpgmaker »

methehack wrote: post #38

There's some negativity around this product on this thread, but honestly I'm really glad Virtual Box is around and under active development. I have both an active linux and os x env for dev and I use virtual box to manage and switch between. It's been super useful, very reliable, fast enough, and, btw, it's free.

Do you just have a vanilla OSX VM installation or do you optimize it in some way? For me OSX is very slow on vbox on a very decently spec'ed VM. Far from my experience with Windows guests.

Re: Virtual Box 5.1

#48

Post by xenadu02 »

Scarbutt wrote: post #42
FireBeyond wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also made even uglier by the fact that VMware has discontinued Fusion, and Parallels (at least in the Vagrant, etc, ecosystem) has always been a second class citizen). Not to mention that Parallels licensing is a pain. I understand license key activation as at times a necessary evil but in cases where you are developing a product for use primarily by developers who may frequently re-install their computer, could…

From where do you get vmware fusion was discontinued?

Management fired the entire HostesUI team and shipped bare-minimum maintenance to India.

Re: Virtual Box 5.1

#49

Post by davweb »

tobias3 wrote: post #16
StevePerkins wrote: post #11

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?

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.

This isn't completely true. You can use it for free commercially as long as you install it yourself. The Licensing FAQ [1] says:

> Also, if you install it on your work PC at some large company, this is still personal use. However, if you are an administrator and want to deploy it to the 500 desktops in your company, this would no longer qualify as personal use.

[1] https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Licensing_FAQ

Re: Virtual Box 5.1

#50

Post by arthurfm »

FireBeyond wrote: post #36
StevePerkins wrote: post #11

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?

It's also made even uglier by the fact that VMware has discontinued Fusion, and Parallels (at least in the Vagrant, etc, ecosystem) has always been a second class citizen). Not to mention that Parallels licensing is a pain. I understand license key activation as at times a necessary evil but in cases where you are developing a product for use primarily by developers who may frequently re-install their computer, could…

> It's also made even uglier by the fact that VMware has discontinued Fusion

It doesn't look like Fusion has been discontinued. [1]

"The Fusion and Workstation teams are having a very busy year. Since we shipped Fusion 8 and Workstation 12 almost a year ago, we’ve been busy adding new skills to the development teams so that we can take the products in a new and compelling direction. Added to that, the team has released several updates that you really should be loading on to your systems – they make the products better in a bunch of ways that are described here, here and here."

[1] http://blogs.vmware.com/teamfusion/2016/07/meet-the-team.htm...

Post reply on HN