Paul, > > I'd favor the VM approach. I think we're all going to wind > up running VM > > anyway. > > > > No, I'm not using it yet. I'm still reeling from the fact > that it requires a > > host OS. Cheap way out, and I think it makes the machine > vulnerable to > > attack. But I suspect a better VM will come along at some > point. I know > > IBM's VM is exactly what we'd like to have (it doesn't > require a host). > > You could set up a Linux box to boot right into a VM running > DOS or Windows 3.1. From > the user's POV, it would be totally native.
That's good to know. What I'm really wishing for is a "real" VM where it's the OS, has no dependencies, and can run any of the major guest OS's. Besides using it for testing apps with different releases, my expectation is that it would provide complete protection for the OS from attacks, because virtual OS's disappear and (presumably) VM itself can't be touched. It's probably being developed somewhere. Intel? Bill > > Paul > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/275eee2fd8da418eaeb31a2beb60c...@bills ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
