[wellylug] virtualisation options?

[Daniel Pittman]

Cliff Pratt <enkidu at cliffp.com> writes:
> Daniel Pittman wrote:
>>
>> Given the dependencies and pain of VMWare Server 2 I couldn't recommend
>> it to anyone, absent the non-free nature of the tool.
>
> Mmm, what dependencies? I installed the tarball version with no
> problems. The nasty interface is a pain but the VMs themselves run
> fine.

VMWare server 2 now depends on a Java stack, Jetty, and a bunch of other
fragile[1] code on the server side.

It now depends on a Mozilla derived browser, and a custom, binary-only
Mozille extension on the client side.


In other words: the "nasty interface", which is fairly important for
management of the VM images — creation, modification of limits and
virtual hardware — and system-wide configuration — networks — is exactly
what I was referring to.


I suppose you could argue that it doesn't have nasty dependencies if you
never intend to do anything outside run pre-built images supplied by
others, started by hand.

Well, or modify the configuration files manually, which isn't really a
supported interface from upstream.

Regards,
        Daniel

Footnotes: 
[1]  ...at least, in my experience, where it several times has failed
     without warning or action on our part, to the point that a full
     uninstall, rm -rf and reinstall was required, yay!