Virtual Machine systems - Mandriva

This is a discussion on Virtual Machine systems - Mandriva ; I've tried vmware 1.x and 2.x but failed to build them on 2009.0. Virtualbox seemed to be more successful but a guest built under it failed to come up after a reboot. Is this common place?...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Virtual Machine systems

  1. Virtual Machine systems

    I've tried vmware 1.x and 2.x but failed to build them on 2009.0.
    Virtualbox seemed to be more successful but a guest built under it
    failed to come up after a reboot. Is this common place?



  2. Re: Virtual Machine systems

    On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 23:45:38 +0100, Alan Secker wrote:

    > I've tried vmware 1.x and 2.x but failed to build them on 2009.0.
    > Virtualbox seemed to be more successful but a guest built under it
    > failed to come up after a reboot. Is this common place?


    No.


    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org


  3. Re: Virtual Machine systems

    On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 18:45:38 -0400, Alan Secker wrote:

    > I've tried vmware 1.x and 2.x but failed to build them on 2009.0.
    > Virtualbox seemed to be more successful but a guest built under it
    > failed to come up after a reboot. Is this common place?


    I've had no problem with VirtualBox, with the exception of having to change
    the dvd device from hdc to sr0, when moving from 2008.1 to 2009.0.

    Which client is failing, and what's happening?

    Regards, Dave Hodgins

    --
    Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
    (nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
    use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)

  4. Re: Virtual Machine systems

    Alan Secker wrote:
    > I've tried vmware 1.x and 2.x but failed to build them on 2009.0.
    > Virtualbox seemed to be more successful but a guest built under it
    > failed to come up after a reboot. Is this common place?


    I cannot speak for the host OS, but 32-bit 2009.0 seems to work as a
    guest of VirtualBox 2.0.2-2 running atop 64-bit 2008.1. I make
    limited use of it, though, so perhaps that says little.

    KDE4 seems a bit flaky, but this may not be related to VB at all.
    Only this morning did the "Plasmoid" or whatever it is called appear,
    so for a while I was having to do almost everything from the command
    line. (Task bar had Terminal, Browser, MCC, and a star to call up
    menus of applications, but the menus lacked a bunch of stuff.) This
    evening the thing has disappeared again, but it came up in KDE 3.5.
    Something seems to be cross-wired. It might be that I was in
    KDE 3.5 this morning when the thing appeared, rather than the KDE4 I
    intended. But is KDE 3.5 supposed to have it?

    Still, it does what I need, and I will keep updating (this too was
    erratic for 2009; I updated from within MCC and got nothing, used
    urpmi --wget --auto-update --auto-select --auto
    within a command window and got 61 update packages), and maybe things
    will straighten out eventually.

    Cheers!

    jim b.




    --
    UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
    expects users to be computer-friendly.

  5. Re: Virtual Machine systems

    Alan Secker wrote:

    > I've tried vmware 1.x and 2.x but failed to build them on 2009.0.
    > Virtualbox seemed to be more successful but a guest built under it
    > failed to come up after a reboot. Is this common place?

    Build? Did you try installing the rpm? Did it fail at vmware-config.pl? what error message did you get?


  6. Re: Virtual Machine systems

    Gireesh Bhat wrote:

    > Alan Secker wrote:
    >
    >> I've tried vmware 1.x and 2.x but failed to build them on 2009.0.
    >> Virtualbox seemed to be more successful but a guest built under it
    >> failed to come up after a reboot. Is this common place?

    > Build? Did you try installing the rpm? Did it fail at vmware-config.pl?
    > what error message did you get?


    Yes VMware failed during the config stage. I much prefer it to VirtulBOX
    because of familiarity but needs must.

    The virtualBOX problem was really the opposite, unfamiliarity. Because I had
    created and ran the guest I assumed it would run on the next boot. What I
    had not realised was that it expected the install DVD/CD device to still be
    there. It wasn't because it had been unplugged. The penny dropped after I
    had had time to think it through. Disabling it solved that problem.

    Now the problem has move on. I cannot see the host Linux folders from the
    guest (XP in this case) but I can see those of my desktop! So I can manage
    for tomorrow!.

    Thanks everyone. Regards, Alan


  7. Re: Virtual Machine systems

    Alan Secker wrote:
    > Now the problem has move on. I cannot see the host Linux folders from the
    > guest (XP in this case) but I can see those of my desktop! So I can manage
    > for tomorrow!.


    VirtualBox configures the guest as one huge file on your hard disk,
    and the user of the guest operates within the confines of that except
    where special intercommunication means has been set up.

    By default, you get a connection via VirtualBox to the internet,
    and there may be some other things, but to see the host folders
    from within the guest I think you will have to configure things.

    Time to rtfm, I think.

    jim b.

    --
    UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
    expects users to be computer-friendly.

  8. Re: Virtual Machine systems

    Jim Beard wrote:

    > Alan Secker wrote:
    >> Now the problem has move on. I cannot see the host Linux folders from the
    >> guest (XP in this case) but I can see those of my desktop! So I can
    >> manage for tomorrow!.

    >
    > VirtualBox configures the guest as one huge file on your hard disk,
    > and the user of the guest operates within the confines of that except
    > where special intercommunication means has been set up.
    >
    > By default, you get a connection via VirtualBox to the internet,
    > and there may be some other things, but to see the host folders
    > from within the guest I think you will have to configure things.
    >
    > Time to rtfm, I think.
    >
    > jim b.
    >


    I looked that up. You naughty boy!

    Actually I couldn't find a manual but I did get it completely working.
    As soon as I get some time to think, I'll jot it down and find a blog to
    stick it on.

    Regards, Alan


  9. Re: Virtual Machine systems

    Alan Secker wrote:
    > Jim Beard wrote:
    >
    >> Alan Secker wrote:
    >>> Now the problem has move on. I cannot see the host Linux folders from the
    >>> guest (XP in this case) but I can see those of my desktop! So I can
    >>> manage for tomorrow!.

    >> VirtualBox configures the guest as one huge file on your hard disk,
    >> and the user of the guest operates within the confines of that except
    >> where special intercommunication means has been set up.
    >>
    >> By default, you get a connection via VirtualBox to the internet,
    >> and there may be some other things, but to see the host folders
    >> from within the guest I think you will have to configure things.
    >>
    >> Time to rtfm, I think.
    >>
    >> jim b.
    >>

    >
    > I looked that up. You naughty boy!


    WTF? What is naughty about Read The Fascinating Manual ?

    Cheers!

    jim b.


    --
    UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
    expects users to be computer-friendly.

+ Reply to Thread