On Monday 21 August 2006 09:08 am, Gregory K. Ruiz-Ade wrote: > On Aug 21, 2006, at 12:09 AM, Todd Walton wrote: > > Seems like a lot of overhead to me. (But isn't that the story of > > practical computing?) > > Honestly, I like the idea of virtual appliances, especially for large/ > complex software packages. I'd be really cool if, say, there was a > Plone virtual appliance that I could download and fire up in VMware > Player (or Server) and simply assign network settings and names to, > instead of having to grind it all into place manually. > > Kind of like the concept of LiveCDs, I suppose, but slightly different. > > As a side note, I've taken to using VMware extensively for trying out > various OS LiveCD images. Actually _very_ handy. > > I thought virtualization was cool when VMware first came on the > scene. Now that the average new computer has processing power to > spare, I really think virtualization has finally become practical. > > Gregory
Someone should check me on this but if I understand this correctly the "Virtual Applications" do _not_ require VMware though they obviously can use it. IMHO the name "Virtual Application" is a bit misleading. All these are, as I understand it, is ready to run application images where a bunch of the config issues are preset to reasonable values. As Gregory says "like a LiveCDImage." As a "not a system admin" type of guy who is more interested in tinkering with a variety of apps and occasionally coding a little this seems like a very good way for me to explore at quite a high level what is going on in the world of Linux applications. BobLQ -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
