[NTLUG:Discuss] If not VMWare 2.x or UML...then what?

[Daniel Hauck]

(2009年10月07日 13:58), Richard wrote:
> Well, I've about had it with VMWare Server 2.x.  The stability is not 
> there, the bugs are too numerous and managing the blasted thing via an 
> http browser is painfully slow.
>
> UML is great for virtualizing linux, but what if one wanted to 
> virtualize a Redmond OS?
>
>
> So, what are viable options that one can put into production?   What are 
> the benefits, limitations, gotchas?
>
> I need to find something else.  I'm not liking where VMWare is going.
>
>   
VMWare seeks to remain dominant in the large enterprise virtualization
market. They really don't care much about vmware server. The probably
prefer that you move to ESX3i. It is also free but the hardware
requirements are significantly higher.

Some people are moving over to VirtualBox while others move to Xen based
solutions. Neither offer everything I like though on my laptop, I use
VirtualBox and it serves my local purposes just fine. If you are
interested in virtualizing servers, VirtualBox will work but will
require additional learning and understanding of how to go about doing
things. For example, starting a machine headless (no GUI display) and
other stuff like that will require some command-line and some scripting
whereas in the case of VMWare server, you just go to the console (which
by the way, there is console access to VMWare Server 2.0... you just
probably won't like it as it's Java based if I recall correctly) and
tell it to enable at system startup.

What specifically is your intention for use? Also, have you considered
VMWare Server 1.0.9? I am presently using that as I also did not like
VMWare Server 2.0.