> So what are the advantages/disadvantages of both systems ? Is FreeVSD
> better or is it just the fact that it's free ?
Of the top of my head, I'd saw neither is better.
FreeVSD's method has the advantage of not granting root privilege, but the
disadvantage that it needs to modify some things (which means FreeVSD might
_NOT_ modify something important). To gain full root access to your
machine, the FreeVSD user would need to crack root through one of the
applications available to them.
Using hard partitions and allowing root access to the virtual hosts has the
advantage of not requiring nearly so much modification to your system, but
has the disadvantage that the user is already root, so breaking out into the
larger machine is much easier.
I imagine a fully virtual system (where the entire system, kernel and all,
runs in a virtual machine) has the advantage of being even more flexible
(users could, for instance, choose to run FreeBSD, or even (gak) NT, on your
Intel hardware. The disadvantage is this is resource-intensive if you want
to host more than one or two virtual systems on your hardware.
In none of these cases do you gain any advantage against defacements
attacks, many DoS attacks, or using your hardware as a launching pad to
attack others. The question boils down to simply being how hard it is for
one user to break out and effect other users or the machine at large.
------------------------- The freeVSD Support List --------------------------
Subscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=subscribe%20freevsd-support
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=unsubscribe%20freevsd-support
Archives: http://freevsd.org/support/mail-archives/freevsd-support
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
