Desktop relevance

[John Boland]

i've been struggling with this x86_64 box for a while.  do you have any
tips/tricks for f9 or is faster/easier to upgrade to f10?


On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Jarod Wilson <jarod-ajLrJawYSntWk0Htik3J/w at public.gmane.org> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>



-- 
If it ain't broke, you're not trying hard enough!