virtualbox.org

kebabbert wrote:VirtualBox was not that stable in earlier releases. I would be very careful to use it in production. VMware is more stable than VB.

I have read through this thread and want to rephrase. I do not mean that VirtualBox is unstable. If it works, it works very well.

What I meant was that new versions of VB can break things, and that is a problem. A stable version works fine. A new upgrade might break things. But if you have a stable VB version, then it is stable. Be careful when upgrading to a new version though. Test the new version well before upgrading.

crash0veride: Can you please provide a vbox.log of your "big iron" hardware ?
I would like to see it, if possible.

-Technologov

I think that the various changes (Innotek->Sun->Oracle) will eventually bring to the end of the "free VBox" days.
Which is somehow inevitable, I suppose.

Maybe we'll end up with two versions, a light one for free and a professional or something, fully featured one, to be paid for. Or maybe the product will simply cease to be available for free.
In either way, the free version users will not have much to complain for; if you do not pay for something you can not actually claim for anything, can you?
Probably we free-users (especially the long time ones) will end up with the satisfaction of having used a very good product while helping its development and, obviously, the possibility of carrying on using the last free stable version.

The GPL license protects our invested hours of work.

Worst case scenario, the OSS community will step in and maintain the last GPL version for Linux & FreeBSD compatibility (to make it compatible with newer Linux kernel versions) and fix basic bugs.
Windows version may survive, because community users are able to compile it, and even fix bugs.
Mac version is likely to get an axe, however, as there are no community developers for it.

The good news, is that Oracle doesn't seem want to kill VBox, but instead made it the core engine of it's enterprise VDI product.
As for me: I strongly believe that type-2 VMMs can compete with type-1 VMMs, if the necessary PV stack is developed and optimized.

-Technologov

Technologov wrote:...Oracle doesn't seem to want to kill VBox, but instead make it the core engine of it's enterprise VDI product...

As for me, I do not think Oracle will kill VBox, which would be quite a strange move, after buying it.
Rather, as I said, VBox could cease to be a free software, becoming (or being incorporated in) a commercial product.

Your own mention of the "possible scenarios" seems to me not so far away from my foresights, also because of an old question I'm still asking myself about the way in which all those "community developers" of freely downloadable and usable software actually earn their livings...

>Rather, as I said, VBox could cease to be a free software, becoming (or being incorporated in) a commercial product.

We may not know the future, especially after the case with OpenSolaris, but I hope for the better.

>an old question I'm still asking myself about the way in which all those "community developers" of freely downloadable and usable software actually earn their livings...

Basically people in OSS have a regular, usually computer-related jobs as: programmers, beta-testers, technicians, sysadmins, ...

And _after_ the work people come home and still have like 3 or 4 hours a day to contribute their time. (developing/testing/writing docs/supporting users in forums/...)

-Technologov

Log files are now attached to my original post...

Technologov wrote:...people in OSS have a regular, usually computer-related jobs as: programmers, beta-testers, technicians, sysadmins, ...

Which means that, somehow, the existence of free software is based on the existence of "commercial" products and services which make it possible for people in OSS to contribute their after_the_work (and_the_wages) time.

Obviously they could spend that time in other ways and so we have to thank them for what they do, but nonetheless this entire matter has indeed its odd aspects.

>Obviously they could spend that time in other ways

Surely. For OSS contributors, like me, it is instead of watching TV for example.

>Which means that, somehow, the existence of free software is based on the existence of "commercial" products

Whenever the existence of "commercial" products for the growth of OSS community is necessary or not is an open debate.
Not all OSS community people hate proprietary/commercial products. For example, I like both Linux and Microsoft Windows. But some people hate proprietary software (Richard Stollman).

However my view of the world is capitalist oriented. I understand the risk that Oracle shareholder took when they have acquired Sun for $7.4 Billion dollars.

However, were I to work in some other (non-computer) field (anything from custodian to financial manager), I would keep contributing to OSS as time permits.
A lot of students are OSS contributors and do this to improve their skills to later work for commercial companies.

-Technologov

Technologov wrote:...For OSS contributors, like me, it is instead of watching TV for example...

Which is quite a remarkable way of spending your time, as what you do is useful to other people, while the same thing can certainly not be said about watching television...

...A lot of students are OSS contributors and do this to improve their skills to later work ...

I'm quite sure about that.
What I'm not able to like is the kind of contempt or even hate many people show towards all that "non OSS" software which actually makes possible the existence of OSS software itself. May Linux lovers, for example, even refuse to pronounce or write words like "windows" or use derogatory words to define windows' users, just as Linux was not good enough to stand on it's own feet.
Others talk about a world in which all software should be free (just like music and literature and so on), as if everybody could spend their time in "contributing" without earning any money. Maybe I'm old and narrow minded, but I really don't see much sense in that, especially considering that most of those contributors actually earn a living by means of the very "enemy" they claim to fight.

There is obviously nothing wrong if a mechanic who works in a large garage enjoys, at night and on weekends, doing some free servicing on the cars of his neighbours. But, should all his colleagues start doing the same, thus causing a significant drop of the garage's sales, they would end up in loosing the job which grants them the possibility of carrying on their selfless... mission, wouldn't they?

>they would end up in loosing the job which grants them the possibility of carrying on their selfless... mission, wouldn't they?

Not necessarily true for the world of software.
This is because businessmen will always find how to add value.
In the future it could be that the OS platform + basic applications are OSS, but you have to buy proprietary software for more specific tasks.

This is the beauty of capitalism. Each capitalist, just like the OSS guy, can scratch his head, come up with new idea, and create a business around it.
Capitalist always find creative ways to add value. In some cases the new added value becomes a de-facto standard, and basically a tax (Windows tax).

>they would end up in loosing the job which grants them the possibility of carrying on their selfless... mission, wouldn't they?

Not necessarily true for the world of software.
This is because businessmen will always find how to add value.
In the future it could be that the OS platform + basic applications are OSS, but you have to buy proprietary software for more specific tasks.

This is the beauty of capitalism. Each capitalist, just like the OSS guy, can scratch his head, come up with new idea, and create a business around it.
Capitalist always find creative ways to add value. In some cases the new added value becomes a de-facto standard, and basically a tax (Windows tax).

Which means to me, in the end, that nothing is or can be actually and really "free" (not paid for).
There are things you directly pay for (like Windows or some devices or some services or the work of some people) and things you pay for "non directly", but we pay for everything, in a way or another, at least as long as people will need money for living.

Nothing wrong with that, once it is made clear and not somehow hidden or disguised.



PS. I wonder how many "OSS guys" would like or accept to be compared to "capitalists"...

@crash0veride, I have looked into your attached logs. Just wondering why are you using two versions of VirtualBox - 3.2.6 and 3.2.8?

Those are lab servers which host VM's for functional OS and software platform testing, they have not had their Versions of VBox upgraded yet