On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 09:25:57AM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote: > On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 09:10:39AM -0400, Scott Robbins wrote: > > > There is also the lighter, and at this point, probably less feature-ful > > VirtualBox, of course. > > VirtualBox works ... until it doesn't. Quality control, in my experience (it > would really take a survey of hundreds of users to be sure, since everything > has bugs _someone_ will encounter), has slipped considerably under Oracle > management. > > Can't speak to the relative feature-fulness of VB. Might depend on whether > you count simplicity as a feature. It is pretty darn simple. So for someone > needing a simple answer.... Yes, exactly--that's its main benefit I think. For casual testing, for things like running a client to quickly test ldap, that sort of thing, I find it quite handy. I haven't done any benchmarks in a long time, save for an almost useless one, compiling FreeBSD make buildworld--VBox was about an hour slower than VMware-player, and KVM-qemu was faster by about 10 minutes--that is, faster than VMware. So, my REALLY subjective impression is that KVM-qemu (on a supported CPU) is somewhat faster than VMWare-player--the new one--which is faster than VirtualBox. VMware-player and VirtualBox are probably about equal in ease of use, VBox is smaller, possibly a bit faster to set up. Going to re-title this one post as it had nothing to do with the OP's question. -- Scott Robbins PGP keyID EB3467D6 ( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 ) gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6 Buffy: Do---do you think I chose to be like this? Do you have any idea how lonely it is, how dangerous? I would love to be upstairs watching TV or gossiping about boys or... God, even studying! But I have to save the world. Again.