Extension packs - why?

Pre-VirtualBox 5.2 forum

Extension packs - why?

Postby sej7278 » 7. Dec 2010, 12:01

These extension packs seem to be to be a way to add the PUEL code to an OSE base, is this correct (it adds rdp and usb2)?

to me that's a very good idea - it means we can have the same code base for both versions, with just a plugin that converts OSE to PUEL.

as per another thread, the options for extension packs should not corrupt the configuration (or just silently fail) so that the VirtualBox.xml file cannot be used in OSE.

i just hope this isn't a ploy by larry to charge for PUEL.
sej7278
Volunteer
 
Posts: 991
Joined: 5. Sep 2008, 14:40
Primary OS: Debian other
VBox Version: PUEL
Guest OSses: Solaris, Linux, Windows, OS/2, MacOSX, FreeBSD

Re: Extension packs - why?

Postby Technologov » 7. Dec 2010, 14:04

NOTE: That as of v4.0 BETA1, there is one feature not OSE:

* Guest Additions: Shared Folders for Windows Guests

I don't know how to solve this problem.

So I'd call v4.0 BETA1 an "almost OSE" release.
Technologov
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3245
Joined: 10. May 2007, 16:59
Location: Israel

Re: Extension packs - why?

Postby sej7278 » 7. Dec 2010, 14:11

pretty sure shared folders are in OSE additions on linux, depends on if you've compiled it correctly in windows i expect.
sej7278
Volunteer
 
Posts: 991
Joined: 5. Sep 2008, 14:40
Primary OS: Debian other
VBox Version: PUEL
Guest OSses: Solaris, Linux, Windows, OS/2, MacOSX, FreeBSD

Re: Extension packs - why?

Postby Technologov » 7. Dec 2010, 14:17

You are precisely wrong.
Technologov
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3245
Joined: 10. May 2007, 16:59
Location: Israel

Re: Extension packs - why?

Postby sej7278 » 7. Dec 2010, 14:23

Technologov wrote:You are precisely wrong.


interesting. it displays in the gui when i compile from svn as enabled, so it just doesn't work when you install the additions?
sej7278
Volunteer
 
Posts: 991
Joined: 5. Sep 2008, 14:40
Primary OS: Debian other
VBox Version: PUEL
Guest OSses: Solaris, Linux, Windows, OS/2, MacOSX, FreeBSD

Re: Extension packs - why?

Postby sandervl » 7. Dec 2010, 14:26

The Windows shared folder code is open source: http://www.virtualbox.org/browser/trunk ... redFolders and part of the base package.
sandervl
Volunteer
 
Posts: 1064
Joined: 10. May 2007, 10:27
Primary OS: MS Windows Vista
VBox Version: PUEL
Guest OSses: Windows, Linux, Solaris

Re: Extension packs - why?

Postby Technologov » 7. Dec 2010, 15:25

OK, Good news to know that this is OSE now. in v3.2.x this was PUEL.

Original topic was: "Extension packs - why?"

The idea here is very good one - to allow 3rd party plugins/extensions of the base functionality, similar to FireFox.
Technologov
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3245
Joined: 10. May 2007, 16:59
Location: Israel

Re: Extension packs - why?

Postby sej7278 » 7. Dec 2010, 16:15

Technologov wrote:OK, Good news to know that this is OSE now. in v3.2.x this was PUEL.


so "You are precisely wrong." :mrgreen:

Technologov wrote:Original topic was: "Extension packs - why?"

The idea here is very good one - to allow 3rd party plugins/extensions of the base functionality, similar to FireFox.


is that the actual reason though - for a start it's broken VNC support, which to date is the only 3rd party plugin for vbox.
sej7278
Volunteer
 
Posts: 991
Joined: 5. Sep 2008, 14:40
Primary OS: Debian other
VBox Version: PUEL
Guest OSses: Solaris, Linux, Windows, OS/2, MacOSX, FreeBSD

Re: Extension packs - why?

Postby Technologov » 7. Dec 2010, 16:32

so "You are precisely wrong." :mrgreen:

Yea, seems so. Sorry.
The world around me evolves faster than I learn... the old truth is no longer true.

is that the actual reason though - for a start it's broken VNC support, which to date is the only 3rd party plugin for vbox.


I think the actual reason is to allow 3rd party features. VNC is just the beginning.
Now this is VNC -- but in future it may be SPICE. SPICE is the fastest remoting protocol I have seen.
SPICE, just like VNC has a license problem -- it is GPL only, so modular architecture is the only way to mix VNC + SPICE with PUEL extensions such as USB + RDP

------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's compare PUEL vs OSE:

Originally (VBox v1.3) more parts were PUEL only:
-Docs
-RDP
-USB
-iSCSI
-Shared Folders for Windows Guests
-Installers (Windows scripts + RPM SPECS + ...)

What was opened? (VBox v4.0)
-Docs (User Manual sources)
-iSCSI
-Shared Folders for Windows Guests
-Installers (Windows scripts + RPM SPECS + Mac OS X installer code, ...)
-USB 1.1 OHCI

What remains closed (VBox 4.0):
-RDP
-USB 2.0 EHCI

==
-Technologov
Technologov
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3245
Joined: 10. May 2007, 16:59
Location: Israel

Re: Extension packs - why?

Postby sej7278 » 7. Dec 2010, 16:52

installers are not in OSE still, certainly no SPEC files for making RPM's, although the .run file can be created with "kmk packing" on linux.

i hope the host kernel modules for OSE and PUEL become one, as currently you can't run OSE/SVN and run PUEL on the same host (you can run the VirtualBox GUI, but not start any guests).

i'd love to be able to install the PUEL RPM from oracle, and then build an OSE RPM and be able to switch between them just by running rpm -e or rpm -i (which would do the neccessary rmmod/modprobe's).

of course if vbox4 does become 100% OSE with the PUEL bits as extensions, then none of this will be needed.
sej7278
Volunteer
 
Posts: 991
Joined: 5. Sep 2008, 14:40
Primary OS: Debian other
VBox Version: PUEL
Guest OSses: Solaris, Linux, Windows, OS/2, MacOSX, FreeBSD

Re: Extension packs - why?

Postby achimha » 7. Dec 2010, 17:02

In the past there were two editions of VirtualBox. The Open Source Edition (OSE) and the closed source edition (PUEL). Both could be used free of charge but the OSE version was only provided as source code and it was not as powerful as the PUEL version and received very little specific testing. Technically OSE was a subset of the source code files that make up the PUEL version. PUEL was a mix of open source and closed source. At Oracle, there are strict policies how open source and closed source can be mixed and after long discussions, an executive came up with the great idea of doing extension packs and thereby make VirtualBox better in many ways:

- No longer have two separate editions, everybody installs the same VirtualBox
- Move from the "Open Core" model to a 100% open source model
- Do not mix open source and closed source
- Making sure that people that compile themselves (e.g. distros) and people that download our binaries actually get the same
- Continue to be able to offer closed source features such as the VRDP and USB 2.0 EHCI controller which are now called the "Oracle VM VirtualBox Extension Pack" (extpack for short)
- Allow third parties to develop extensions on top of VirtualBox (as open and closed software)

As part of the shift, a lot of stuff was made open source, e.g. the installers and the user manual. It is important to realize that 4.0 is more open source, not less (in fact not a single line of code that used to be open is now closed).
achimha
Volunteer
 
Posts: 217
Joined: 10. May 2007, 09:24

Re: Extension packs - why?

Postby frank » 7. Dec 2010, 17:06

Note that all installers are OSE as well, have a look at src/VBox/Installers/linux/rpm. I know, this location is a bit unusual but doing
Code: Select all   Expand viewCollapse view
cd src/VBox/Installers/linux
rpm/rules binary

should build an rpm package.
frank
Oracle Corporation
 
Posts: 3363
Joined: 7. Jun 2007, 09:11
Location: Dresden, Germany
Primary OS: Debian Sid
VBox Version: PUEL
Guest OSses: Linux, Windows

Re: Extension packs - why?

Postby Technologov » 7. Dec 2010, 17:07

Yes, now I see the installer sources:

http://www.virtualbox.org/browser/trunk ... .tmpl.spec

http://www.virtualbox.org/browser/trunk ... ualBox.wxs

Thanks for clarification.
Definitely good news for the Open-Source community today :)

==
-Technologov
Technologov
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3245
Joined: 10. May 2007, 16:59
Location: Israel

Re: Extension packs - why?

Postby sej7278 » 7. Dec 2010, 17:10

achimha's clarifications just made my day - that's exactly what i wanted - OSE being the core and PUEL shifted out to extensions (as long as they stay free-of-charge!) :mrgreen:

and nice to see the spec files, although i think i'm missing a stage (./configure && kmk all && kmk packing && cd out/linux.amd64/release/bin/src/ && make) as i can't get it to build from svn:

Code: Select all   Expand viewCollapse view
cat: /etc/distname: No such file or directory
grep: src/VBox/Installer/linux/distributions_rpm: No such file or directory
rpm/rules:55: *** Cannot detect package distribution (rpmrel=fedora13).  Stop.
sej7278
Volunteer
 
Posts: 991
Joined: 5. Sep 2008, 14:40
Primary OS: Debian other
VBox Version: PUEL
Guest OSses: Solaris, Linux, Windows, OS/2, MacOSX, FreeBSD

Re: Extension packs - why?

Postby Technologov » 7. Dec 2010, 17:29

sej: please move specific problems to a different thread.

This one discusses general things.
Technologov
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3245
Joined: 10. May 2007, 16:59
Location: Israel

Next

Return to Pre-Beta 5.2 Postings

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests