| 1 |
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 06:56:29 -0800, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> "Unsupported" in this context means "I'm paying the same price for my |
| 4 |
> license as somebody who buys a Workstation license for a Windows or |
| 5 |
> RHEL host and I expect that VMware will give me the same level of |
| 6 |
> support". |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Of course they will, as long as you pretend you are using Red Hat :( |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
They've stated what they support, it's your choice to run on a different |
| 11 |
platform. "not supported" does not mean "not working". A more serious |
| 12 |
concern is that their support only lasts for 30 days, after that you have |
| 13 |
to buy support at $50 per question. Put in that context, the support is |
| 14 |
worthless past the initial get-it-working stage, Google is much cheaper. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> I know 5.5 "works on Gentoo" and I'm pretty sure 6.0 will |
| 17 |
> too. All I'm saying is that Gentoo is providing some level of support |
| 18 |
> by putting ebuilds in Portage for something with no support from the |
| 19 |
> vendor. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Gentoo devs are providing support for Gentoo users by enabling them to |
| 22 |
manage WS installations through portage. That's all. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> I downloaded the Beta and tried it. I had some problems getting it to |
| 25 |
> work. I think someone on the forum helped me get going and I was able |
| 26 |
> to get it to run, although it was so slow it was unusable once I did |
| 27 |
> get it running. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Despite the startup warning about debug being enabled and this slowing |
| 31 |
things dowm I found the speed similar to 5.5. Possibly because 6.0 is 64 |
| 32 |
bit native. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> But just yesterday I got an email from their support |
| 35 |
> folks with the standard "We don't support what you're trying to do. A |
| 36 |
> list of supported hosts can be found ..." disclaimer. All I'm saying is |
| 37 |
> that they don't "support" us -- why should we "support" them by |
| 38 |
> distributing their package and even supplying patches so that it works |
| 39 |
> on Gentoo? |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
"We" aren't supporting anyone. The Gentoo devs are supporting us. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
> I think I had this discussion a while back, and the upshot was that a |
| 44 |
> number of the Gentoo developers used VMware Workstation themselves, so |
| 45 |
> they made it work, and as long as VMware didn't forbid them from |
| 46 |
> distributing it, they didn't see anything wrong with distributing it. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Gentoo don't distribute it, they only distribute a bash script and a |
| 49 |
couple of patches. The rest comes from VMware. Distributing VMware isn't |
| 50 |
really an issue anyway, I have distributed many tens of thousands of |
| 51 |
copies, all within VMware's licence terms. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
> Gentoo developer resources are finite, though, and if you've got the |
| 54 |
> right hardware in place, Xen beats the doodoo out of VMware for quite a |
| 55 |
> few "interesting" tasks like running a Windows guest. Gentoo developer |
| 56 |
> resources being finite ... :) |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
Doesn't Xen require a modified guest OS? I like VMware because it runs |
| 59 |
the OS with no modifications. Having said that, Virtual Box looks |
| 60 |
interesting and is near the top of my "to try" list. |
| 61 |
http://www.virtualbox.org/ |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
-- |
| 65 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
If you only have a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail. * |
| 68 |
Maslow |
Archives