Review Of Serenity Virtual Station 166
JigSaw writes "Here's some serious competition for VMWare and Virtual PC: OSNews reviews a new OS emulator, the Serenity Virtual Station, which can run as a host on FreeBSD, Linux and OS/2 and supports as guests a slew of OSes. It is based on the twoOStwo virtual operating engine (which additonally runs on top of Windows as well)."
Serious? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Serious? (Score:2)
Re:Serious? (Score:2, Interesting)
It is not really meant to compete with Bochs and VirtualPC. It is meant to ease the migration of 10 Million OS/2 machines to something else, this week I think its Linux. IBM really wants businesses to get of OS/2 and doesn't want to spend much to support it.
IBMs future plans for OS/2 involve mostly supporting it on a virtual mach
Re:Serious? (Score:2)
Re:Serious? (Score:2)
Take someones word I guess...
NOT.
(Software is presumed to be shit until proved otherwise, preferably by actual useage).
Surprizing (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why people stay on Windows (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why people stay on Windows (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why people stay on Windows (Score:3, Interesting)
Have you had a lotta luck with it? I was able to run Linux on Linux (but I may as well use UML then), and it was quite fast, but I didn't have Win98 handy to try, which as I heard it was the only Windows to work on Qemu (and even then, quite unreliably). Know anything about that?
Re:Why people stay on Windows (Score:2)
Re:Why people stay on Windows (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why people stay on Windows (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Why people stay on Windows (Score:4, Informative)
Regular Wine too... (Score:2)
Re:Why people stay on Windows (Score:2, Informative)
You could have done that ages ago.. with VMWare. Serenity isn't any more special than VMWare. From what I can make out, you'll have to pay for it as well!
Re:Why people stay on Windows (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Why people stay on Windows (Score:2)
Market advantage over VMWare? How about that if it's $20, as you say, it's 1/30th the cost of VMWare.
Dude, VMWare costs a shitton.
~Will
Re:Why people stay on Windows (Score:2)
2) I *didn't* say that it costs $20. I said that *if* it costed $20, maybe that would give it a fighting chance. By the way, VMware costs $199, not $600.
Re:Why people stay on Windows (Score:2)
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
- It's easy to use (before someone chimes in with their anecdotal "this happened to me once" situation, yes, for the majority of people Windows is very easy to use)
- Easy to download and install drivers.
- As a result, easy to go down to Wal-mart and buy a new printer and have it work in less than a minute.
- Endless software, including lots of freeware. There's more software for Windows because Windows is easier to develop for, with no endless list of competing, inconsistent toolkits that exist simply to reinvent the wheel yet again and introduce another "choice"
- Old software still works. I can run my Windows 3.1 programs in XP if I wanted to. Linux distros are still a bit of a moving target. I can't guarantee an RPM I got five years ago will still work, can I? Meanwhile, I can run a Windows app from 10 years ago with no problems.
If you honestly think the reason that 95% of the marketshare is using Windows is simply because of Photoshop, you're deluded. OS X has Photoshop as well, but look at its share compared to Windows.
Note that despite all this, Linux can catch up and defeat Windows. But it has to abandon XFree86, implement things like binary installation/uninstallation APIs, one sane toolkit that is a joy to program for (i.e., like
Re:Why? (Score:1)
good one.
Re:Why? (Score:2, Informative)
>
> - Easy to download and install drivers.
When they work, they work great. The problem is, there often don't work that well. Linux doesn't have drivers for everything, but for the drivers that they do have are rock solid and more generic. USB drivers is a prime example. Windows XP requires drivers for some stuff that Linux works with out of the box. Why doesn't the newest version of Windows treat something as generic as USB more generically?
> - As a result, eas
Re:Why? (Score:2)
I call BS until you give an actual list of programs, especially "2000 apps dont work on XP".
Re:Why? (Score:2, Interesting)
1) Old people don't normally use Linux.
2) If they do, they're in the IT field.
3) Your argument about automatically working on plug-in fits MacOS x.y like a glove.
4) Old software working: You have a mainly valid point here.
5) As many OSS beacons would say: "Backwards compatibility is for people who can't write new software." (well, okay, that was a paraphrasing of Linus, but it applies IMHO)
You can't write good software if you're trying to keep compatibility with version x.y.z-ab
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
A) Puts out well-tested, QAed releases
B) As such, is very reliable (not had an X crash for years)
C) Is compact and secure
D) Still runs on 486 boxes comfortably (go try it; I've done it. It's GNOME and KDE slowing things down)
Evidently, you don't know much about XFree86 -- fair enough, but try not to look ignorant. If you keep pushing for Y-Windows or Fresco or whatever's the fad du jour, you'
"Why?" -- STOUshare (Score:2, Insightful)
More significantly, easy to market. Because of what I will herein refer to as STOUshare. People stay with M-Windows because most people are STOUs (Simply Task-Orientated Users) not STEVEs (Serious Techies, Engineers Vilipending Enslavement).
STEVEs want an open road, the Mustang GT390 of hardware and the Jacqueline Bisset of algorithms... and, er, hardware.
STOUs want to "send a picture" and "read mail".
A STOU doesn't really buy much
Re:Why? (Score:1)
so i would say a unified driver interface would be something that OSes need to have so that compiling the drivers for a particular OS is as simple as compiling the driver from within said OS and distributin
Re:Why? (Score:1)
easier to use? Oh well... if you follow the wizard click throughs custom built by your peecee vendors yes... it's easier... alas! Try to sidestep the railroad and you're alone... in a rattlesnake den called "The Registry"...
easier programming? Hmph... you must refer to excel math functions like: average, sum, vector product... oh wait. The walmart printer example? Oh, you must have read ESR's rant... nice try... troll. Endless software? Hmph... how much of it is us
Re:Why? (Score:2)
What are: "the XP common controls," "Office toolkit," and ".NET toolkit" then? Even Microsoft can't pick a single toolkit for their products... If you're stupid enough to think Windows has only one toolkit, then I'm hesitant to take anything else you say seriously.
Re:What the hell are you talking about? (Score:2)
When you "go to WalMart and buy a new printer" the reason it "works in Windows" is that there was a DISK IN THE BOX WITH THE PRINTER WITH THE DRIVER ON IT!!! Th
Re:Why people stay on Windows (Score:1)
A problem with Open Source development is that it is drowning in photo-album organisers and mp3 players, but lacks boring bu
Re:Why people stay on Windows (Score:2)
If you want accounting software for Linux, try: GnuCash [gnucash.org]
or
SQL-Ledger [sql-ledger.org]
Gnucash is similar to Quickbooks and handles multiple currencies. SQL-Ledger runs on a webserver, so you can run it either on the same computer, or from a webbrowser on a different computer.
Both are open source. There are other projects too, but you ought to do the research yourself.
Re:Why people stay on Windows (Score:3, Informative)
Most important question: (Score:2, Insightful)
Two Questions (Score:5, Interesting)
VMWare pricing is a little steep. It is a fantastic product. I don't, however, use all of its features. One that provided the basic functionality, which is a fast, easy-to-use virtual machine at a fraction of the cost would be useful.
Also, I would want to be sure that the licensing is per-user, and you can install it on any number of host computers you like, provided only you use it. I would not want to have to pay for a separate copy to use under Windows or Linux, because sometimes I will be on my Windows box emulating Linux, and sometimes on my Linux box emulating windows. I myself might use them concurrently, but I will be the user.
Just two thoughts before giving this serious consideration as an alternative to VMWare.
VMWare Price Drop (Score:5, Interesting)
VMWare just chopped $100 off the price of VMWare Workstation. You can now buy [vmware.com] version 4.5 for $199 (boxed) or $189 (download).
At the lower price, Im considering buying it myself. (I would buy only one copy for only one host OS.) Maybe theyre feeling the heat from all [sourceforge.net] that [colinux.org] open [sourceforge.net] source [sourceforge.net] competition [cam.ac.uk].
Re:VMWare Price Drop (Score:5, Informative)
In any case it's great it has become less expensive as VMWare Workstation really is a great product.
Re:VMWare Price Drop (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually I think it is the Microsoft competition [microsoft.com], now retailing at $129. I believe the majority of VMWare workstation sales are on Windows.
Microsoft will be coming out with Virtual Server soon.
VMWare did do one smart thing. They donated free licenses to many open source projects (such as Samba). That ensured that those talented developers didn't contribute their time to the open source projects due to having something that works for them.
Re:VMWare Price Drop (Score:1)
Re:VMWare Price Drop (Score:2)
--Perhaps. I prefer to be in the minority though; my Vmware Workstation 3.x license is for a Linux host. I wouldn't even *consider* running Vmware on a typical Windows install (as a host) - when, not if, the box crashes, it would take the VM environment(s) with it. Linux == stability, for me.
Re:VMWare Price Drop (Score:2)
Re:Two Questions (Score:1)
I have to agree with you there. But it's a complete bugger to install properly. I've tried several times to get anything to install on it properly, and no dice.
Using the 30-day evaluation of VMWare gives you just enough time to get frustrated with it.
VMware is easy to install on Linux (Score:2)
Re:VMware is easy to install on Linux (Score:2)
Note: Host == 2.4 kernel, VM client == 2.6 for testing (crashing.) Is there any 3rd-party fix for v3, or do I need v4 to test 2.6 kernels in the VM environment? (For various reasons I'm unwilling to migrate the host itself to 2.6.) TIA
Re:VMware is easy to install on Linux (Score:2)
Denial of OS (Score:5, Insightful)
"Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world"
- WB Yeats, "Things Fall Apart"
Re:MVS (Score:1, Funny)
Re:MVS (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Denial of OS (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Denial of OS (Score:1)
Re:Denial of OS (Score:5, Interesting)
True.
The most popular one is Mach
Barf. Not to sound rude, but Mach is a horrid base for an operating system. I'm sorry Apple went with it.
If you mean popular as in "most widely used", then yes, Mach is the most popular "microkernel" (though it doesn't really fit the definition).
Mach is far from the most popular in hacker or academic circles (ie. those who know any better). L4 [l4ka.org] and EROS [eros-os.org] are far more suitable hosts for a guest operating system. L4 already has Linux 2.2 and 2.4 running as hosts [tu-dresden.de] in fact.
Re:Denial of OS (Score:2)
In fact, given the lack of complaints about stability for OSX, either that's just what Apple did, or they sent A LOT of money fixing up Mach into something that worked and was stable. Something ot
Re:Denial of OS (Score:2)
But vendors don't sell kernels and libraries. They sell complete systems. Getting all the pieces to interoperate would be like insisting that all the car companies sell cars that use each others parts. In both OSs and cars, it's technical feasible, it would very nice for users, it would lower t
Requires a Kernel Mod? (Score:4, Informative)
Ah, well. Trust OS News to be short on technical details. Or even on proper grammar.
Re:Requires a Kernel Mod? (Score:4, Informative)
I think the support would be added to Windows via a
The author indicates that the Beta responsiveness is comparable to VMWare, which suggests that it is using some form of providing access to the hardware, rather than emulating hardware in software.
As a point of recall, OS/2 has x86 virtualization already built in, which allowed users to run dos and win3.0 applications in their own seprate processor spaces.
Then again, I'm not currently developing emulators for any platform, so what do I know.
-Rusty
Re:Requires a Kernel Mod? (Score:2)
Yeah, but x86-32 processors themselves have built-in virtual 8086 processor hardware support. A virtual x86-32 processor is much trickier to implement on an x86-32 machine, since the x86-32 doesn't supply hardware support for that.
OS/2 isn't the only OS that supports virtual 8086s, either -- Linux/DOSEmu and Windows back to 3.0 (in 386 Enhanced
Re:Requires a Kernel Mod? (Score:2, Informative)
OS/2 isn't the only OS that supports virtual 8086s, either -- Linux/DOSEmu and Windows back to 3.0 (in 386 Enhanced Mode) do, too. Though on Windows you're limited to what OS/2 called Virtual DOS Machines, while Linux supports Virtual Machine Boots.
Actually OS/2s virtual machine support is good enough to boot any version of DOS and anything else that will run on a 8086. Minix runs fine here on OS/2.
Free? (Score:5, Interesting)
Does anyone know about a free alternative to VMWare etc.? It sure would be nice to be able to run "the other OS" in a virtual machine while I'm on Linux or Windows... but not nice enought to warrant paying for it.
Re:Free? (Score:5, Informative)
HTH
Re:Free? (Score:1)
Re:Free? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Free? (Score:1)
Re:Free? (Score:2)
Re:Free? (Score:1)
Well, you can run Windows programs in WINE.
And WINE runs on linux.
And linux runs on usermode linux.
And using usermode linux, you can have as many virtual machines as you like.
Plus being WINE, it probably won't take as many system resources as Windows itself (no need to load Internet Explorer regardless, etc.)
Of course, if you want free software, the Free Software people will offer you a Free operating system. There's no particular reason why t
Re:Free? (Score:1)
Wine can run win32 software on linux.
VMWare can run windows or linux and other on windows or linux.
Two completely different aproach to two different problems.
Useless in so many ways (Score:4, Funny)
Not useless, just fun (Score:2)
Is this for real? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, if you want to run virtual machines, the way to go might be the AMD 64-bit machines, which supposedly have the proper hardware support virtual IA-32 machines. Has anybody tried that yet?
Re:Is this for real? (Score:2)
Great comparison. Like in: "You can stuff lots of people in your Cessna, but it is a horrible hack. Compare a Boing 747, which is an aircraft done right." The right tool for the right job, and VMWare does its job pretty well, ugly hack or not.
Re:Is this for real? (Score:2)
This problem could be fixed in hardware, and, I think, AMD did
Serenity now (Score:3, Funny)
PowerPC version of Virtual Machine? (Score:2, Interesting)
About the only think I haven't got is a good PPC vertual machine application. Yes, there is VirtualPC, but that emulates a completely different architecture (x86), so there will be a big performance hit. What I am looking for is the equivalent of VMWare for PowerPC. I could then have a farily light weight LinuxPPC image for all my Linux needs, rather than needing to repartit
Re:PowerPC version of Virtual Machine? (Score:1, Insightful)
I've been meaning to toy with it for some time, maybe now that I have a new iBook I'll try it on my old iMac.
Re:PowerPC version of Virtual Machine? (Score:3, Interesting)
I've occasionally had the desire to do some sandboxed work on my Mac (I use VMWare for the PC all the time), but I can't bring myself to install Linux on my Powerbook. Removing FreeBSD and installing Linux on my PC (for VMWare) was hard enough.
But, if you can live with Linu
Re:PowerPC version of Virtual Machine? (Score:3, Informative)
Mar 21, 2004 Mac-on-Linux 0.9.70 is out!
It is here, finally! Some highlights:
Support for CD burners
Generic USB support
Generic SCSI support
Sound driver rewrite (and ALSA support)
Networking improvements
Reduced latency
Mac OS X 10.3 acceleration
Performance enhancements
Various bug-fixes
Support for the 2.6 kernel
Debugger improvements
Misc improvements for SMP systems
A lot of other minor modifications
Technical highlights
THIS LIN
Re:PowerPC version of Virtual Machine? (Score:2)
Nice.. that looks like just what I need. I'll be watching for the OS X release.
Thanks.
Re:PowerPC version of Virtual Machine? (Score:2)
Re:PowerPC version of Virtual Machine? (Score:2)
Out of curiosity, what needs are those, that Mac OS X can't do as well natively? Some people might need Linux/x86 for proprietary software, but I can't imagine there's much proprietary Linux/PPC software that isn't available for Mac OS X. Is there still a lot of open-source software that doesn't compile properly on OSX?
Re:PowerPC version of Virtual Machine? (Score:2)
There are some Linux-specific things I want to poke around with, like the Linux kernel, and various extensions to that.
But, the main reason is that I want to avoid mucking up my MacOS X environment as much as possible. I hesitate before compiling/installing software that needs extensive libraries. Or, perl apps with a bunch of dependencies, etc. I want to have
Unless it offers... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Unless it offers... (Score:2)
Re:Unless it offers... (Score:5, Interesting)
More information at http://www.vm.ibm.com/
But z/VM will not be the "new virtual machine" for desktops because: (a) the virtual instruction set is s390, (b) all I/O is done through "channels", (c) you need big iron to run it.
Re:Unless it offers... (Score:1, Informative)
Google for "Xen", but it's an academic project.
Re:Unless it offers... (Score:2)
For comparison, the VMware server offerings DO have their own mini-OS to serve as host. It's a heavily-modified RedHat Linux, which provides a console and basic OS services (like hard disks and network routing),
Re:Unless it offers... (Score:1)
Re:Unless it offers... (Score:1)
Re:Unless it offers... (Score:1)
What do you think VMware ESX Server is?
ESX Server Is No Good To Home Users (Score:2)
Uh, this is not a review, but a preview (Score:4, Insightful)
becareful.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I would be very very careful with VMs for i386 unless of course i knew exaclty how it was handling those 17 instructions. Just becasue it can run programs does not mean that it is a proper VM or even that it is a secure VM.
There is a chance you can mess up your machine with theset things.
Re:becareful.. (Score:2)
Firefly reference? (Score:3, Funny)
OSX (Score:1, Interesting)
Here you go... (Score:1)
Gnu-Darwin [sourceforge.net]
Serenity more kernel-friendly than VMware? (Score:3, Insightful)
On another note, VMware released several versions of their software before they finally included such important features as USB support. Even though it's still unclear whether such features will make it into the first official release of Serenity, one wonders how soon an open source project of this magnitude will be able to match VMware Workstation 4.x's performance and core feature set--especially considering that Serenity's supported OS's already rival VMware's.
If Serenity is more responsive in windowed mode than VMware Workstation, then that's already a big plus.
Re:Serenity more kernel-friendly than VMware? (Score:2)
mouth(foot);
Re:But (Score:1, Funny)
Re:But (Score:1)
Re:My use for virtual machine software (Score:1)