[conspire] (forw) Re: (forw) Re: VirtualBox

Fri Sep 23 15:16:42 PDT 2016

Thanks for suggestion of KVM as alternate to VB. I do see that it is a standard debian package.

So what I have done is to1) back up all of the crazy partitions that Dell created.  (Remind me to think twice about another Dell computer even if the price is marked down.)2) run VMware's P2V.3) I've just started reading the documentation for Virtual Box. 
Next I want to make verify the output of P2V is good. 

If there was such a thing as a live Linux ISO with KVM, I could skip VB.

      From: Dana Goyette <danagoyette at gmail.com>
 To: Paul Zander <paulz at ieee.org> 
Cc: Dan Bikle <dan.bikle at gmail.com>; "conspire at linuxmafia.com" <conspire at linuxmafia.com>
 Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 3:02 PM
 Subject: Re: [conspire] (forw) Re: (forw) Re: VirtualBox

If you don't need Virtualbox's claimed 3D support (which is actually rather crappy), I'd suggest running Windows under KVM, via vert-manager.KVM is integrated with the Linux kernel, and doesn't require binary drivers on the host.

On Sep 23, 2016, at 2:56 PM, Paul Zander <paulz at ieee.org> wrote:
Running VB on windows is only a temporary activity.  

It was Rick's suggestion that, as an intermediate step, install VB on Windows and have it actually run the virtual version of windows.  

Then, having verified the Virtual windows works, I can safely reformat the HD to my liking, and install Debian using the entire drive.  After that, I will used Linux to run VB for those applications for which don't have a Linux counterpart.
BTW, one thing I noticed along the way was that when I am running windows inside VB, that installation won't need assorted programs like LibreOffice or gimp, which I might wish I could run while windows was open.  Another advantage of using virtualization instead of dual-boot.  

Now if the machine had come with Windows install media, this would have been a lot simplier, but we have already beaten that topic into dust.

      From: Dan Bikle <dan.bikle at gmail.com>
 To: Paul Zander <paulz at ieee.org> 
Cc: "conspire at linuxmafia.com" <conspire at linuxmafia.com>
 Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 11:11 AM
 Subject: Re: [conspire] (forw) Re: (forw) Re: VirtualBox

Paul,
Answer to q1: My experience with virtualbox is that it is buggy and unreliable on windows. For USB features and support you will need to see how virtualbox behaves on your PC.  I have seen evidence that USB support exists for virtualbox guests but I dont know how reliable it is.

Answer to q2: I prefer .txt files.
-Dan

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Paul Zander <paulz at ieee.org> wrote:

Many months later, I am moving forward on VirtualBox.
The next step is to actually install VirtualBox.
2 quick questions:1)  Regarding hardware.  I have at least one Windows program that uses a special USB thingy.  Can Windows in VirtualBox, readily find the USB thingy?   Will that lock up the entire USB? For example the mouse which is also on USB?
2)  I have been making rather detailed step-by-step notes of the process.  It is several pages; Much too long to send as an email.  Is this something that should be posted on linuxmafia?  If so, what format is preferred?  PFD, ODT, TXT?

      From: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>
 To: conspire at linuxmafia.com 
 Sent: Friday, April 8, 2016 1:26 AM
 Subject: Re: [conspire] (forw) Re: (forw) Re: VirtualBox

Quoting Paul Zander (Paul Zander):

> Regarding disk and partition units:The particular machine has a 1TB
> drive.  Originally C: 900 GB.  There were some "hidden" partitions,
> which seem to be standard windoz something.

If I were you, I would spend some effort figuring out what those are and
what they're for.

> Win8 includes a partition manager, but it has limited functionality.

Yes, you'll ideally want to use a real, open source one, run from a live CD
(which impliedly includes USB flash) distribution.

> Regarding flash vs. SSD:Both are solid state memories based on NAND
> cells which have a limited number of write cycles before they
> degrade.  SSD has a enhancements to increase the life by 10X or more. 
> Now that think about it, only a few years ago people were questioning
> if solid state memories were reliable enough to replace spinning
> disks.  

Early on with NAND flash devices, there was a lot of worry about limited
numbers of write/erase cycles and consequent early device death.  As you
say, current production drives have so extended that number of cycles
that nobody is really worried any more.  By the time your 2016 SSDs are
wearing out, you're almost certain to want to replace them with better,
faster, massively higher capacity, cheaper, tinier 2022 SSDs (or whatever).

People who remain worried are, of course, perfectly welcome to stick to
(slow, power-sucking, heat-and-noise-generating) spinning-rust drives,
that aren't exactly immune to device failure, either.

______________________________ _________________
conspire mailing list
conspire at linuxmafia.com
http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/ listinfo/conspire

______________________________ _________________
conspire mailing list
conspire at linuxmafia.com
http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/ listinfo/conspire

   _______________________________________________
conspire mailing list
conspire at linuxmafia.com
http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/conspire

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/conspire/attachments/20160923/3b06fb4c/attachment.html>