Desktop relevance

[jarod-ajLrJawYSntWk0Htik3J/w at public.gmane.org (Jarod Wilson)]

On Friday 27 March 2009 10:09:58 John Boland wrote:
> i have to echo the sentiment about the poor state of vmware server 2.0.
> i've tried it on i386 and x86_64 h/w, various versions of fedora (and
> windoze) and it does truly suck!
> however, that being said, the 1.x versions work beautifully on i386 hardware
> and any o/s.  the x86_64 support for any of the vmware products is
> atrocious, regardless of version.
> another thing that is annoying, kernel level support.  vmware doesn't seem
> to support kernels above 2.25.

Uhm... What? I presume that was "2.6.25", and regardless, I have VMware Server
2.0 running on a box w/a 2.6.27.21 kernel at home just fine. And its x86_64
on top of that.

> there are several patches that do fix the
> problem (references to kernel headers when building local modules and
> such).  that does leave you relying on a vendor's product that only works
> with a 3rd party patch.
> my virtualbox experience hasn't been good enough to get me to switch from
> vmware server.  admittedly, that was going to head to head several months
> ago using an xp box as the host.  i haven't been able to get virtualbox to
> work on x86_64 either.

VirtualBox worked just fine on the same x86_64 system above before I switched
it over to VMware Server. (The guests are server-type guests, so VMware
Server is more of what I need vs. VirtualBox's relatively immature remote
management support).

-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod-ajLrJawYSntWk0Htik3J/w at public.gmane.org