On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 08:45 +0200, Rebecca Walter wrote:
> While I respect the concerns expressed by the community so far, I don't think
> these outweigh the advantages seen by our experts. I don't think "virtual
> host server" is more complicated than the other server terms we use
> regularly.
While I respect the concerns expressed by the community so far, I don't think
these outweigh the advantages seen by our experts. I don't think "virtual
host server" is more complicated than the other server terms we use
regularly. Virtual machine is definitely easier than what we've used in th
Alexey Eremenko wrote:
anything, let's as wild as Playstation, for emulation case - usually
this would be x86 PC)
usually, not necessarily, gamebox emulators are prosent for age here :-)
good guess to don't forget them :-)
jdd
--
http://www.dodin.net
http://gourmandises.orangeblog.fr/
-
According to my basic terminology:
*Host
Your real computer, on which the emulator/virtualizer software runs.
Host means both your real hardware and the operating system that
controls that hardware.
In some cases there can be only hardware without operating system,
like VMware ESX.
The term
Rebecca Walter wrote:
Virtual machine 1, virtual machine 2 two different (virtualized) computers
guest: Linux, XP, W98, dos, freebsd...
there wouldn't be "guest" used here, if I have understood properly. It would
be a virtual machine running whatever OS.
I think the "guest" concept is impo
> > "virtual machine"--Not domain or guest.
>
> we shall make a difference between the virtual machine, that is the
> computer, and the guest, that is the operating system intalled on it
> (at least I see this on VMWare)
>
> Host: my physical computer
virtual machine server would be this one.
>
Rebecca Walter wrote:
(ok for me)
"virtual machine"--Not domain or guest.
we shall make a difference between the virtual machine, that is the
computer, and the guest, that is the operating system intalled on it
(at least I see this on VMWare)
Host: my physical computer
Virtual machine 1,
Hi Rebecca !
On 6/1/07, Rebecca Walter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We have a request from management to standardize our terminology for
virtualization technology. They, with input from in-house experts, propose
the following terminology. Does anyone know of any reason these terms should
not be
We have a request from management to standardize our terminology for
virtualization technology. They, with input from in-house experts, propose
the following terminology. Does anyone know of any reason these terms should
not become the standard? I need feedback by the end of the day on 4 June
