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