On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 12:12:13 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>> Why would that be impossible?
> 
> OK, I rephrase: It's infeasible on Windows. You could probably do it on
> Linux, given sufficient time and energy.

Assuming the development prerequisites are all installed:

./configure && make && sudo make install

Should do the trick.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Nuhuh. Apparently VirtualBox is "free" so long as you only use it for a
>> week or two. You can also obtain a copy licenced under the GPL, but then
>> you have to compile it from source yourself. (Which, obviously, is
>> impossible.)
> 
> I know many people who have run VirtualBox from downloaded binaries and 
> it hasn't been "time bombed".  There is a pay-for version, but there's 
> also a free version.
> 
> In fact, just looking here now, Virutalbox-OSE is the name of the package 
> on OpenSUSE 11.0.  OSE = Open Source Edition.

 From the VirtualBox website, the OSE is available as source only. You 
have to build it yourself. (Suffice it to say my Windows box doesn't 
have automake, autoconf, Perl, Python, sed, grep, gcc, ld, tar, or any 
of the other things that 99% of all programs require in order to build.)

There's a binary package, but it has a different license.

>> OK then. So how about VMserver then?
>>
>> Nuhuh. They're demanding a real email address before they will let me
>> download the product, and it looks like they're going to demand that I
>> "activate" it after it's installed.
> 
> VMware Server does require a "real" e-mail address, but the system will 
> accept mailinator.com e-mail addresses if you don't want to provide a 
> real address.
> 
> And it doesn't require activation, you just need a license key.  I have 
> it installed on a system.

Hmm. Interesting.

> I would go with VMware Server for cross-platform support.

In the end, I got to fed up I used my laptop instead. ;-) My bedroom is 
currently a tangle of Ethernet cables...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 19:27:10 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> Nuhuh. Apparently VirtualBox is "free" so long as you only use it for
>>> a week or two. You can also obtain a copy licenced under the GPL, but
>>> then you have to compile it from source yourself. (Which, obviously,
>>> is impossible.)
>> 
>> I know many people who have run VirtualBox from downloaded binaries and
>> it hasn't been "time bombed".  There is a pay-for version, but there's
>> also a free version.
>> 
>> In fact, just looking here now, Virutalbox-OSE is the name of the
>> package on OpenSUSE 11.0.  OSE = Open Source Edition.
> 
>  From the VirtualBox website, the OSE is available as source only. You
> have to build it yourself. (Suffice it to say my Windows box doesn't
> have automake, autoconf, Perl, Python, sed, grep, gcc, ld, tar, or any
> of the other things that 99% of all programs require in order to build.)
> 
> There's a binary package, but it has a different license.

Maybe from the virtualbox website, but the beauty of open source software 
is that others can package it *for* you:

--- snip ---

[jhenderson@krikkit ~]$ zypper if virtualbox-ose
Repository 'Packman Repository' is out-of-date. You can run 'zypper 
refresh' as root to update it.
Reading installed packages...


Information for package virtualbox-ose:

Repository: openSUSE-11.0-Updates
Name: virtualbox-ose
Version: 1.5.6-33.2
Arch: x86_64
Vendor: SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Nuernberg, Germany
Installed: No
Status: not installed
Installed Size: 15.6 M
Summary: VirtualBox OSE is an Emulator
Description: 
VirtualBox OSE is an extremely feature rich, high performance product
for enterprise customers, it is also the only professional solution
that is freely available as Open Source Software under the terms of the
GNU Public License (GPL).

--- snip ---

This is NOT a source package.  It's a binary installable on my system 
from the openSUSE repositories.

So no, you don't have to build it from source, you have to look in your 
distro's package management system to see if someone has provided a 
binary package of the OSE version.

>>> OK then. So how about VMserver then?
>>>
>>> Nuhuh. They're demanding a real email address before they will let me
>>> download the product, and it looks like they're going to demand that I
>>> "activate" it after it's installed.
>> 
>> VMware Server does require a "real" e-mail address, but the system will
>> accept mailinator.com e-mail addresses if you don't want to provide a
>> real address.
>> 
>> And it doesn't require activation, you just need a license key.  I have
>> it installed on a system.
> 
> Hmm. Interesting.

Mailinator is a very useful service.  I use it often for site 
registration when I don't want to be spammed by the website.  Very few 
reject mailinator.com e-mail addresses, but I have run across a couple.

Jetable is another service that provides some obfuscation and temporary e-
mail addresses (but Jetable will forward stuff to you).

>> I would go with VMware Server for cross-platform support.
> 
> In the end, I got to fed up I used my laptop instead. ;-) My bedroom is
> currently a tangle of Ethernet cables...

I know that feeling - though the bedroom hasn't been the place for that 
in many years....my home office space currently is.  Stupid cable 
management stickies didn't stick to my glass desk very well.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> The Wikipedia article suggests that it only gives you low-resolution 
> 16-bit graphics,

The wikipedia article is incorrect. Oh, OK, 16 or 32 bit, but not 24 bit.
That's possible. My stuff is running at 32 bits.

OK, I just went into SuSE and set the color depth to 24 bits, no problem.
Gee, I guess since Microsoft never improves their products, the wikipedia
editors must not know wtf they're talking about, eh? Maybe they know less
about Linux than I do? ;-)

> and also that only certain OSes work. (E.g., not all
> flavours of Linux will install.)

I dunno. I haven't found any flavors of Linux that don't work. I'm pretty
sure I ran ubuntu on it, but give it a go and let us know. Note that
"Microsoft doesn't support running Linux under VirtualPC" is different from
"Linux doesn't run under VirtualPC".

The wikipedia article also says it runs 64-bit OSes, but that doesn't seem
to be the case here. Maybe I have a slightly different version, or maybe the
free one has some limitations.

Hmmm... Actually, yes, it looks like Ubuntu doesn't boot. Something about a
bad checksum on mumblefrob isapnp. (Funny enough, I can torrent down the ISO
faster than I can burn it to a real CD.)  Oh, on second look, the CD doesn't 
boot on either of the machines I have hooked up to screens here, so it 
doesn't really look like it's definitely a problem with VirtualPC.

> I would expect a VM to either work 
> properly, or not. It appears this one is "not".

It has some flakes, it seems. But I'm not sure how much I'd blame that on
VirtualPC and how much I'd blame it on Linux.  Certainly if the CD doesn't 
boot on the actual hardware, it's hard to say the emulated hardware will do 
better. And it's not like there haven't been (for example) calls to boycot 
certain manufacturers for making motherboards that only work with Windows, 
only three months later to find out it's because the Linux kernel wasn't 
actually following the standards and hence wasn't working with that 
motherboard. :-)

I don't imagine you'll find other VMs that are perfect either.

I guess it depends on what you want it for. What kinds of things will you be
doing with Linux on a virtual machine where (say) 16-bit graphics wouldn't
be good enough for you?  What do you do with Linux that makes Ubuntu 
necessary where OpenSuSE wouldn't suffice?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

>> The Wikipedia article suggests that it only gives you low-resolution 
>> 16-bit graphics,
> 
> The wikipedia article is incorrect.

*gasp* OMG!

>> and also that only certain OSes work. (E.g., not all
>> flavours of Linux will install.)
> 
> I dunno. I haven't found any flavors of Linux that don't work.

Oh, OK then.

> (Funny enough, I can torrent down the ISO
> faster than I can burn it to a real CD.)

*envy*

I'm currently sucking down KNOPPIX at a rate of about 8 KB/sec. 
Currently 10% done after several hours.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I'm currently sucking down KNOPPIX at a rate of about 8 KB/sec. 
> Currently 10% done after several hours.

Eight minutes, here. ;-)  Of course, you need enough machines in the swarm 
to actually feed you that fast. :-)

I'm trying the "server" version of ubuntu to see if it'll boot. The 
"desktop" version brings up the "what next" menu, and when you hit enter on 
a choice it spins up the CD for a few seconds then comes back to the menu. 
On the 64-bit machine, it spends 5 minutes loading the kernel, then pops up 
a box saying "Boot loader: OK" and when you press enter you're back at the 
main menu again. WTF guys?  If I run across a version of ubuntu that 
actually boots, I'll try it under VirtualPC.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

>> I'm currently sucking down KNOPPIX at a rate of about 8 KB/sec. 
>> Currently 10% done after several hours.
> 
> Eight minutes, here. ;-)

Git.

> Of course, you need enough machines in the 
> swarm to actually feed you that fast. :-)

Well, actually earlier today it was 50 KB/sec. But around about 5 PM it 
suddenly dropped to 8 KB/sec. (As in, there was a sharp line in the 
traffic history.) And it's been setting at exactly 8 KB/sec ever since. 
I almost wonder if my ISP is shaping the traffic...

Also, I'm downloading the *previous* version of KNOPPIX, which possibly 
has a smaller swarm. (Still, it says 14 peers and 228 seeds, you'd 
*think* that's enough...)

> I'm trying the "server" version of ubuntu to see if it'll boot. The 
> "desktop" version brings up the "what next" menu, and when you hit enter 
> on a choice it spins up the CD for a few seconds then comes back to the 
> menu. On the 64-bit machine, it spends 5 minutes loading the kernel, 
> then pops up a box saying "Boot loader: OK" and when you press enter 
> you're back at the main menu again. WTF guys?  If I run across a version 
> of ubuntu that actually boots, I'll try it under VirtualPC.

LOL!

The Real WTF(tm) is how each release of Ubuntu has a stupid name. My 
laptop is running Ubuntu "hardy ferron".

It said there were updates to be installed. I told it to go for it. Took 
about an hour. o_O I was almost wondering if by the time it finished 
some new updates would be available! ;-)

Actually, I just checked. The updater complained it couldn't resolve the 
DNS name of the update server. I tried 3 times; failed each time. (It 
takes *forever*, mind you. For some reason it insists on rebuilding the 
package dependency tree, even though it hasn't changed.) So I pinged the 
update server. Now suddenly the update program sees it. WTF??

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Well, actually earlier today it was 50 KB/sec. But around about 5 PM it 
> suddenly dropped to 8 KB/sec. (As in, there was a sharp line in the 
> traffic history.) And it's been setting at exactly 8 KB/sec ever since. 
> I almost wonder if my ISP is shaping the traffic...

I think it's also likely that a lot of people have stuff on home machines 
and they set the schedule to let it run all-out when they're at work. I've 
seen the opposite on some torrents, too, where weekends or evenings it'll be 
fast and during the work day it'll be a trickle. Probably the same thing, 
I'd guess, only the other direction.

> LOL!

Server gets a little farther, in both real and VirtualPC, but neither 
actually get to the point where it gives you a prompt you can do something 
with.

> The Real WTF(tm) is how each release of Ubuntu has a stupid name. My 
> laptop is running Ubuntu "hardy ferron".

I know a guy working on a project where the first release was named "Blame 
Canada."  Then it was "Blame Datshunds", then "Blame Egrets" or some such...

> Actually, I just checked. The updater complained it couldn't resolve the 
> DNS name of the update server. I tried 3 times; failed each time. (It 
> takes *forever*, mind you. For some reason it insists on rebuilding the 
> package dependency tree, even though it hasn't changed.) So I pinged the 
> update server. Now suddenly the update program sees it. WTF??

Hey, welcome to open source. :-)

I'm dicking around with Blender right now. You wouldn't believe how ... 
awful it is.  After figuring out that shadows don't work in ray tracing mode 
unless you tell the thing the shadows are casting *onto* that it should pay 
attention to whether things are transparent, I'm now stuck with a piece of 
cloth that will only interact with some objects and not others, even tho the 
other objects are dupicates of the ones it interacts with. WTF mohn?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

>> The Real WTF(tm) is how each release of Ubuntu has a stupid name. My 
>> laptop is running Ubuntu "hardy ferron".
> 
> I know a guy working on a project where the first release was named 
> "Blame Canada."  Then it was "Blame Datshunds", then "Blame Egrets" or 
> some such...

Heh, nice.

>> So I pinged the update server. Now suddenly the update 
>> program sees it. WTF??
> 
> Hey, welcome to open source. :-)

Hmm, yes...

Although at least with most Linux distros, you get the feeling that it's 
more that just one person's hobby project. Too many Haskell things 
really *are* a one-man hobby project! :-/

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Server gets a little farther, in both real and VirtualPC, but neither 
> actually get to the point where it gives you a prompt you can do 
> something with.

OK. It helps immensely to have a CD without physical errors on it after 
you've burned it. :-) Now it boots fine on real hardware and complains about 
the emulated CD drive on the VirtualPC.  Given that it just booted the boot 
code and install menu off the CD, and given that other Linuxes seem to work 
OK, I'm not sure what Ubuntu is doing that would be a problem. Maybe trying 
to check more types of hardware for greater compatibility, and failing 
because it can't figure out what kind of hardware it is or some such.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message