Virtual Box

Bill Davidsen davidsen at tmr.com
Wed Mar 25 14:13:38 UTC 2009


Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 05:14:55PM -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:32:23 -0700
>> Aldo Foot wrote:
>>
>>> I think VirtualBox may be preferred because it appears more
>>> manageable in the surface.
>> A friend at work who uses it says it is vastly easier to
>> do things like pass USB devices through to the virtual hardware
>> with VirtualBox than with anything else he has tried,
>> so he can do things like use Windows scanner software for
>> scanners not supported by anything in linux.
> 
> I agree, USB devices are easier to pass through to VirtualBox --
> however, I'm testing Rawhide on my personal machine starting this
> weekend, which is very close to F11 Beta right now.  I'll try to let
> the list know what improvements I see in USB device connections to the
> guest.
> 
Got a link to the problems people had? I only tried a direct connection to USB 
once, as they say "for educational purposes only," but it seemed to work just 
fine. So fine, in fact, that I am tempted to access some hardware using an XP in 
VM rather than fighting ndiswrapper.

However, I would expect KVM to be the most efficient VM, just because of direct 
kernel support. Note, I haven't benchmarked that in any way.

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen at tmr.com>
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot




More information about the fedora-list mailing list