On Friday, May 28, 2010, Joseph Apuzzo wrote: ... > So many times at the LUG lunches ( need to go if you can ) have I > casually mentioned things like: > Me: "Wow I just installed Vurtual Box and it's not that bad" > Mike: " I hate Virtual Box it screwed up one of my systems" > Sean: "Ya what's wrong with KVM? it's more of what your looking > for..." so goes back and forth, 2 days latter the Vurtual Box > caused me to re-install that box as it screwed up that system > ( but that's my fault not saying that VB is bad for others). > Point is would have been more productive if I had asked for > experiences first, KVM was harder to learn then Virtual Box but > it's outperforming it and so far it has not interfered with the > base OS, as I have observed other methods sometimes doing.
Good to know. The only interesting thing I want to add here is that it seems KVM and VirtualBox seem somewhat incompatible -- because if the modules for KVM are loaded in the Linux kernel, VirtualBox complains and refuses to start. [At least that's the behavior I see.] This also means migrating from VirtualBox to KVM probably requires migrating to a different host machine. ... > Thank you for the discussion ( start installing Fedora 13 Tuesday ) > the points I have taken away is: > 1) Newer kernel better ( where Gentoo wins this race ) That only relates to the default kernel of course, as you can compile and install a newer one if there's a reason you need it on any distro you want. [I need to make a web page about this one of these days.] The only problem with that idea is that replacing the distro kernel with a custom compiled one tends to become political. -- Chris -- Chris Knadle [email protected] _______________________________________________ Mid-Hudson Valley Linux Users Group http://mhvlug.org http://mhvlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mhvlug Upcoming Meetings (6pm - 8pm) MHVLS Auditorium Jun 2 - Android Jul 7 - Patent Absurdity - The Movie Aug 4 - Samba
